Canada

[palmspringsbum]

Victim confronted robbers with knife, jury told

Jan 24, 2007
By Jeff Mitchell
durhamregion.com

WHITBY -- An Ajax man wielded a kitchen knife as he defended himself and his family against intruders intent on stealing his medical marijuana, a prosecutor said in outlining the case against two men accused of participating in the robbery.

Crown counsel George Hendry said he expects evidence presented at the trial will prove O'Neil Johnson and Audi Breedy were among the five masked men who stormed the south Ajax house in February 2005.

Both young men have pleaded not guilty to robbery, assault and weapons offences. Their trial began in Superior Court in Whitby Wednesday.

In laying out evidence he expects to call, Mr. Hendry said five masked men entered the Charlton Crescent house at 10 p.m. on Feb. 26, 2005, confronting the home owner and dragging his wife upstairs, where their teenaged daughter and her young friend were. The homeowner grabbed a kitchen knife as he faced the invaders, Mr. Hendry said.

"He used that knife to defend himself and his family," the prosecutor said.

The homeowner was cut on his hand during a struggle, jurors heard. Mr. Hendry said clothing with the man's blood on it was found in a vehicle in which the robbers are alleged to have fled the scene of the crime.

Mr. Johnson and Mr. Breedy were among five young men found in the vehicle and arrested, Mr. Hendry said. Also found in the vehicle were a .32-calibre handgun and a pellet gun as well as tape, gloves, bandanas and garbage bags, he said.

The first witness at the trial was the Durham cop who saw and pursued the car as he rushed to the scene in response to an emergency dispatch.

The trial, presided over by Justice Myrna Lack, is expected to take four weeks.

[palmspringsbum]

witness recounts life and death struggle

<span class=postbigbold>Recalls home invasion terror</span>

Jan 25, 2007
By Jeff Mitchell
durham region news

WHITBY -- A key Crown witness was overcome with emotion Thursday as he recounted what he described as a life and death struggle with several masked men who stormed his south Ajax home in a robbery attempt.

Donald Newell said he fought desperately with the men, who invaded his house in an apparent attempt to steal the marijuana he was licensed to grow for medical reasons.

"I've had these people ruin my life for two years," said Mr. Newell, his voice breaking and tears coming to his eyes after about a half hour on the witness stand in Superior Court in Whitby Thursday morning.

Mr. Newell was testifying at the trial of Audi Breedy and O'Neil Johnson. The two young men face robbery, assault and weapons charges in connection with the home invasion at Mr. Newell's Charlton Crescent home in February 2005.

Mr. Newell testified he and his family were preparing to retire for the evening when he heard a knock on his door around 10 o'clock on a Saturday night. He said he looked out and saw a lone black man he thought he recognized as a friend. But when he opened the door five men swarmed through it, one of them forcing his wife upstairs.

Mr. Newell said he was struggling with the other intruders when one of them pointed a gun at his head.

"I saw a pistol -- I figured it's my life," he said.

"I'm not going to get pistol whipped. My family's not going to go through that trauma.

"They're going to have to kill me."

The struggle continued after Mr. Newell made his way to the kitchen where he grabbed a large knife and managed to dial 911, he testified. The suspects began to scatter when he wielded the knife, he said, adding he sustained a serious cut to his left hand during the fracas.

He closed the door after four of the men fled, then fought with the man who'd gone upstairs with his wife, the jury heard. Mr. Newell said he opened his door and let go of the man, whom he'd caught in a headlock.

"He hightailed it out of there," he said.

Under questioning by Crown counsel George Hendry, Mr. Newell said he put up the fierce fight to protect his family, including his wife, teenaged daughter and ailing father.

"I think they figured it was going to be something easy but it got foiled," he said.

"They didn't know who they were dealing with, I guess."

Earlier, jurors heard the two accused were among five young men arrested by police when their car was stopped a short distance from the crime scene.

The trial continues.

[palmspringsbum]

Living in grow-op danger


By ROCHELLE BAKER
Abbotsford News
Jan 25 2007


As many as 30 per cent of the 150 grow operations inspected and shut down by the City of Abbotsford last year may have housed children living in dangerous conditions.

The city’s public safety inspection division – conceived to fight grow operations by allowing fire and city inspectors to enter suspect properties – has reported 54 cases to the Ministry of Children in the last year and a half, said City of Abbotsford spokesman Jay Teichroeb.

“In about a third of the homes that are investigated there is some evidence of a child living in the residence,” Teichroeb said Tuesday.

“When we go into to a home [with a grow operation] and find evidence of a child, we immediately notify the Ministry of Children and Family Development,” he said.

The city’s inspection division numbers reflect the Abbotsford Police Department’s experience.

“For many years now, we’ve consistently found kids in grow operations,” said Const. Casey Vinet of Abbotsford Police.

It’s troubling from a police perspective – the kids are innocent victims in this.”

Some dangers associated with marijuana operations – particularly for children – are the accumulation of mold and fungus due to humidity, the presence of toxic chemicals, and an increased risk of fire, electrocution and violence due to home invasions and rip-offs, he said.

Within the space of a month Abbotsford police shut down two marijuana grow operations with kids in them.

Two children – one 18-months-old and the other aged three – were found when police served a search warrant Jan. 15 at a home in the 34200 block of Larch St.

Police discovered 353 marijuana plants in the basement, and arrested the parents who face charges of production of a controlled substance.

In a second incident Dec. 18, police found 111 marijuana plants and two children under the age of seven at a house in the 2900 block of Whistle Dr.

At the time the children were under medical care for some sort of respiratory illness that my be related to the grow op, officers reported.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development was called in both cases to investigate possible neglect by parents for exposing children to dangerous conditions, said Vinet.

“In many searches we’ve located hazardous equipment and chemicals in areas that children often pay around and in some cases, sleep,” he said.

“Parents and others who expose children to such risks need to know their behaviour is unacceptable, and there are consequences.

This behaviour speaks to the blatant disregard those who grow marijuana have, not only for the public, but in many cases their own children.”

In December, the BC Association of Social Workers called on the Children’s ministry to develop provincial guidelines to help workers deal with children taken into care at grow-ops.

The association has estimated as many as 1,000 children in B.C. are endangered by home based commercial grow operations.

The ministry stated Friday it responds to over 30,000 child protection reports in B.C. in a given year, but doesn’t keep specific statistics about children found in grow operations.

Nor does the ministry have a set policy for dealing with children in grow-ops, but rather assesses and responds to each specific situation.

However, it stated designated regional directors are determining whether policy or protocol is needed.

[palmspringsbum]

Robbery victim grilled by defence lawyers

<span class=postbigbold>They cite inconsistent evidence</span>

Jan 26, 2007
By Jeff Mitchell
durham region news

WHITBY -- Lawyers representing two men accused of taking part in a violent home invasion in Ajax have vigorously questioned the man whose home was robbed, attempting to highlight for a jury inconsistencies in various statements he's made.

The lawyers have also questioned Donald Newell extensively about how he's used the medical marijuana he was licensed to grow -- and why that licence was suspended.

Mr. Newell has described how he fought off several masked intruders who swarmed into his Charlton Crescent home in February 2005, apparently intent on stealing the marijuana he grew and stored there. Five people were arrested after a traffic stop a short distance from the robbery scene. Two of them, O'Neil Johnson and Audi Breedy, are on trial in Superior Court in Whitby on assault, robbery and weapons charges.

In cross-examining the witness, Mr. Johnson's lawyer, Larry Moldaver, cited statements Mr. Newell made to a 911 operator, to police officers responding to the emergency call and in subsequent court appearances.

Mr. Moldaver said the number of assailants and details about them, including their skin colour, has varied in each of Mr. Newell's statements.

"I am suggesting to you that you don't know how many persons came in, do you?" the lawyer asked.

"I know," Mr. Newell replied.

Mr. Newell was also questioned about neighbours and acquaintances in his south Ajax neighbourhood with connections to illegal drugs and his own drug use. He said he has used only legal medical marijuana to prevent epileptic seizures, and that while he has used crack cocaine, it was in the past.

"I haven't touched it for years and years and years and years," Mr. Newell said.

Under questioning by Mr. Moldaver, Mr. Newell said he had never sold any of his medical marijuana crop to anyone.

And he said he was mystified when his neurologist of more than 20 years suddenly withdrew his licence to cultivate pot after the home invasion.

"He refused to see me," Mr. Newell said. "He refused to give an explanation."

The trial continues.

[palmspringsbum]

Witness recants statement implicating accused

<span class=postbigbold>They took no part in robbery, he says</span>

Jan 31, 2007
By Jeff Mitchell
durham region news

WHITBY -- A Crown witness has recanted a statement he made to police implicating two men in a violent home invasion robbery, saying he was lying to deflect blame and save his own skin.

Trifon Naydonev, who has since pleaded guilty to taking part in the robbery in south Ajax almost two years ago, said he was worried about taking the fall for the crime, so he told cops that Audi Breedy and O'Neil Johnson were with him during the invasion, pointing to Mr. Johnson as the man who threatened a homeowner with a gun.

But testifying in Superior Court in Whitby Wednesday, Mr. Naydonev said it was just him and two other men who've also been convicted, who entered the Charlton Crescent home in February 2005, intent on stealing the homeowner's medical marijuana. He said while Mr. Johnson and Mr. Breedy were in his car that night, they didn't take part in the home invasion.

Mr. Naydonev acknowledged implicating the two accused men during an interview with Durham police Detective Craig Hudson shortly after being arrested but said he did so because he was in a tight spot.

"I would have blamed anyone," he said in response to questions by prosecutor George Hendry.

"No one was a friend to me, sir," he said.

"I didn't care."

Jurors have already heard that Mr. Johnson and Mr. Breedy were among five young men in Mr. Naydonev's car when it was pulled over by police moments after the robbery. Police found weapons, bandanas, gloves, rolls of tape and clothing smeared with the victim's blood in the vehicle.

The trial continues.

[palmspringsbum]

Chief, CAS want tougher laws for grow house operators

<table class=posttable align=right width=222><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg src=bin/tots-in-crops.jpg></tr></td></table><span class=postbigbold>8 children found in pot houses so far this year</span>

Jan 31, 2007
By Joe Fantauzzi, Staff Writer
YorkRegion.com

There should be a specific criminal charge for people who keep children in marijuana grow houses, says York Regional Police Chief Armand La Barge.

"I would almost favour a specific section of the Criminal Code that deals with this," Chief La Barge said.

That, along with mandatory minimum sentences, would make it harder for suspects to get off lightly by pleading guilty to lesser charges, such as theft of electricity.

Chief La Barge isn't alone.

The Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies also supports an amendment to the Criminal Code to further punish people who raise their children in grow ops, spokesperson Marcelo Gomez said.

So far this year, eight children have found during grow house investigations in York Region.

The most recent case happened Saturday.

Around 6 p.m., firefighters from Markham responded to reports of smoke coming from an upstairs window in a McKennon Street home, in the Bur Oak Avenue and Hwy. 48 area.

They discovered the smoke was actually humidity steam emanating from a grow-op in the basement.

Officers arrested a woman living in the home and notified the Children's Aid Society her three-month-old son was living there with her.

A 33-year-old Markham woman was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking and the production of a controlled substance.

Often, charges laid in connection with marijuana grow ops include possession for the purpose of trafficking, production of a controlled substance and theft of electricity.

"I think the sentences need to be commensurate with the level of crime," Chief La Barge said.

Including the children found so far this year, 73 have been rescued from alleged grow houses in the past three years.

"Certainly, that is not parenting as I know it," Chief La Barge said. "The children have no choice but to live in these environments."

In some cases, the children may be in the house so neighbours don’t suspect marijuana is being grown there, Newmarket Councillor Larry Blight.

"The criminal element always tries to stay one step ahead of the police and they have nefarious ways and means of doing that," Newmarket Councillor Larry Blight said. "The program used to be the houses were unkempt, nobody ever went near them and now they’re putting families in the upper floors of these homes."

Police and the York Region CAS work hand in hand, under an interpretation of the Child and Family Services Act, which allows CAS to take children into care if they are at risk of abuse or neglect.

The aggravating factors include various unhealthy and unsafe conditions associated with grow ops including the use of pesticides, unsafe electricity bypasses -- yielding a risk of fire and even the dangers organized crime presents.

When a child is found in a grow op, CAS immediately places the child in foster care and then does an assessment to see if there is extended family the child can be placed with to reduce the trauma associated with uprooting them from the family home, Martin McNamara, executive director of the York Children’s Aid Society, said.

A medical exam at Sick Children's Hospital -- called the mother risk program -- is also done to see if the child is suffering ill effects from living in the grow-op.

The average amount of time a child stays in protective custody is 44 days and last year 83 per cent of children were returned to their parents or relatives.

But not before a number of conditions were met, including the child was to attend school regularly, have access to medical care, enjoy appropriate parenting and not suffer abuse.

The CAS monitors the home for six months to make sure the grow op doesn’t re-open.

But the Child and Family Services Act does not expressly mention children living amongst drugs as being at risk.

A recently passed law in Alberta, however, does.

The Drug Endangered Children Act, which took effect Nov. 1, 2006, allows child intervention caseworkers and police to rescue and protect children based on the idea they are drug-endangered.

"These kids are being used and they need our protection," Alberta Children's Services Minister Heather Forsyth said at the time. "The issue of children being exposed to the dangers of drug manufacturing and trafficking is becoming more and more common.”

[palmspringsbum]

Crown, key witness square off

Feb 5, 2007
By Jeff Mitchell
durhamregion.com

WHITBY -- Jurors hearing the trial of two men accused of taking part in a home invasion saw a remarkable exchange Monday when a prosecutor accused a key Crown witness of lying to protect the defendants.

Crown counsel George Hendry said the testimony of Trifon Naydonev is rife with inconsistencies because the man is "desperate" to help Audi Breedy and O'Neil Johnson escape prosecution for the robbery.

"You're lying here in court to protect these two men -- correct?" Mr. Hendry asked Monday.

"That is totally untrue," Mr. Naydonev replied.

Mr. Naydonev spent several days testifying as a Crown witness against Mr. Johnson and Mr. Breedy, who face robbery, assault and weapons charges in connection with a home invasion in south Ajax in February 2005. The Crown alleges they were among a group of five men who stormed the Charlton Crescent home intent on stealing medical marijuana being grown there.

Mr. Naydonev has pleaded guilty to his role in the robbery, as have two other men arrested in a traffic stop moments after the robbery occurred. Mr. Breedy and Mr. Johnson were also in the car when the bust occurred, jurors have heard.

When he was interviewed by Durham police hours after the robbery Mr. Naydonev admitted he'd taken part and implicated the other suspects, saying he'd seen Mr. Johnson with an imitation handgun that night. But in court last week he recanted that statement, claiming he was lying to a robbery detective to protect himself. He testified neither Mr. Breedy nor Mr. Johnson knew of plans to rob the house or took part in the invasion.

The denials led Superior Court Justice Myrna Lack to rule Mr. Hendry could cross-examine his own witness, which has led to a series of lively exchanges between the two in which the Crown has accused Mr. Naydonev of tripping over numerous lies -- and the witness sticking to his story.

At one point Monday morning Mr. Hendry inquired of the witness: "You're having a hard time while in court keeping your answers straight. Are you making it up on the fly?"
 "That's not true, sir," Mr. Naydonev responded.

Mr. Naydonev's testimony wrapped up Monday in Whitby. The trial continues.

[palmspringsbum]

Crown completes evidence in home invasion trial

<span class=postbigbold>Showdown with witness a courtroom highlight</span>

Feb 9, 2007
By Jeff Mitchell
durham region news

WHITBY -- The Crown has concluded its case against two young men accused of taking part in a violent home invasion that targeted a south Ajax man who grew medical marijuana.

Jurors are to learn Monday morning if lawyers representing Audi Breedy and O'Neil Johnson, both of Toronto, will call evidence on behalf of their clients. In the three weeks since the trial began, they've heard from police officers who investigated the robbery, as well as the victim and a man who's already pleaded guilty to taking part in the invasion.

It was that witness, Trifon Naydonev, who provided the most intriguing testimony so far. The Pickering man admitted on the witness stand he and two other young men attempted to rob a man they knew as a drug dealer, but said repeatedly that Mr. Breedy and Mr. Johnson did not take part.

He said the two young men were along for the ride on a Saturday night in February 2005, expecting to go along with Mr. Naydonev and his friends to a nightclub in Toronto when they made a stop at Charlton Crescent to buy some marijuana. Mr. Naydonev said Mr. Johnson and Mr. Breedy waited in the car while the robbery took place and had no idea a home invasion was planned.

All five young men were arrested when Durham police stopped Mr. Naydonev's car a few blocks from the scene of the crime.

It was during an interview with a Durham detective in the hours after the bust that Mr. Naydonev confessed and implicated the other young men, specifically identifying Mr. Johnson as having carried a gun during the robbery.

But on the stand at trial he recanted that story, saying he was lying to police to save his own skin.

Superior Court Justice Myrna Lack ruled Crown counsel George Hendry could cross-examine his own witness, a process that eventually led to the prosecutor impeaching Mr. Naydonev.

"You're lying here in court to protect these two men -- correct?" Mr. Hendry asked at one point.

"That is totally untrue," Mr. Naydonev replied.

The trial continues Monday, when defence counsel Larry Moldaver and Robert Ackerman will indicate to jurors whether or not they intend to call evidence.

[palmspringsbum]

New dosage limits for medical marijuana: But where's the science?

Canadian Medical Association Journal

Pauline Comeau
Ottawa, September 11, 2007

New evidence-based guidelines are urgently needed to help doctors negotiate Canada's hazy medical marijuana landscape, particularly in light of Health Canada's efforts to impose new dose limits, say the nation's leading cannabis researcher and doctors who have been queried about their marijuana authorizations.

Canada should also re-establish a formal process for developing responsible dosing strategies, says Mark Ware of McGill's University Health Centre, the sole researcher funded under the now defunct Medical Marijuana Research Program ( CMAJ 2006;175:[12]: 1507-8 ).

The 1053 doctors now authorizing marijuana use for 1816 patients need "more evidence" regarding rational dose levels, he says. And Ware suggests the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoid could lead such an effort.

"There is more research, more trials, formulations that could be done," says Ware. "If we had a couple of days in a room with people and pharmacologists then we could sit around and say, here is the best we can come up with, here are some guidelines."

Under current medical marijuana rules, doctors authorize the amount of marijuana they and their patients feel is necessary. However, several who have recommended above 5 g per day were recently telephoned by a Health Canada medical marijuana program officer, and advised that the department recommends no more than 1–3 g per day, irrespective of the medical condition or means of consumption (inhaled, ingested or both). Health Canada also posted that recommendation on its Web site in October 2006, after officials noted the number of authorized users prescribed at more than 5 g per day had increased to 15% in June, 2006 from 10% a year earlier.

<table align=right width=200 class=posttable><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg src="bin/myrden_alison.gif"></td></tr><tr><td cass=postcell>Alison Myrden of Burlington, Ont., is authorized to take 20–28 g of marijuana per day to alleviate pain from multiple sclerosis and trigeminal neuralgia. Her physician did not alter her dosage after a Health Canada phone call, but Myrden says, "I've been prescribed heroin and cocaine, and I've never had the issues I've had with marijuana." Photo by: Kevin Frayer, Canadian Press</td></tr></table>The lower 1–3-g dose recommendation stems from "an examination of current available evidence on daily amounts," stated unnamed officials in an email exchange coordinated by Health Canada spokesperson, Renée Bergeron. Asked to provide the scientific basis for the dose recommendations, the officials cited 3 studies and "preliminary Canadian research findings."

In the first study, Medical Cannabis: Rationale Guidelines for Dosing (IDrugs 2004;7:464-70), Health Canada selectively noted that users in Washington and California consumed 1.42–2.86 g per day. However, the study authors go on to recommend a dose range of 0.05–7.40 g per day, and that was for a more potent form of cannabis currently produced by Health Canada's grower (15% tetrahydrocannabinol content compared to 12%-plus). Moreover, the study concluded that considering the complexity of marijuana dosing, from tolerance to mode of ingestion, the guidelines should be viewed only "as a construct to allow the physician and patient to develop an individual, self-titration dosing paradigm."

The second study surveyed 916 users in the United Kingdom; a third documented use among 34 multiple sclerosis patients in Nova Scotia. In the latter 2 studies, consumption was less than 1–2 g per day.

Ware authored the UK study and coauthored the Nova Scotia one. In both, he says, nothing more than a range of use was documented. He notes that marijuana strength and its form of use can alter its therapeutic effectiveness.

Susan Russell, acting director for Health Canada's Office of Controlled Substances, says ordering patterns under the existing medical marijuana program support the 1–3-g limit as does "preliminary" Canadian information gleaned from an "unpublished study."

Those preliminary research findings are data from a study by Ware, funded by the Medical Marijuana Research program, which is not complete. "It is therefore premature to make any public statements about the study data; our estimates could yet change with further data collection," says Ware.

And while 1–3 g seems reasonable, based on the literature, more research is needed to be definitive, he says.

Medicinal marijuana users are frustrated by the latest twist. Tony Adams of Victoria, BC, is "furious" about the government's failure to respond to his letters regarding dosage reductions. Adams, 60, who suffers from degenerative disc disease and severe arthritis, was licensed for 7 g per day. He was seeking a boost to 10 g to use as tea, but got approval for 5 g.

Health Canada's Russell says the goal of the calls to doctors is merely to "verify or clarify the proposed daily amount." But some physicians say they have felt challenged, and have either prescribed lower doses or withdrawn from the program altogether. "You wonder, like with the narcotic control program, if they're going to flag the doctors that have high [tetrahydrocannabinol authorization] practices or something; if you're going to be under scrutiny," said one physician on condition of anonymity.

"In the pain practice, there is enough potential heat on this that I do not want to stand out too much," says Dr. David Boyd of Victoria Hospital's London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ont. He has 50-plus patients using marijuana, and no longer authorizes more than 5 g per day.

University of Ottawa Director of Health Services, Dr. Don Kilby is sympathetic to Health Canada's dilemma in managing a program that can include people seeking marijuana without true need, and he also sees the difficulty doctors face in helping patients whose ailments indicate a need for higher marijuana doses. Guidelines are needed, Kilby says.

Russell says Health Canada doesn't plan to develop guidelines, and doesn't have any "evidence" that doctors are intimidated by the calls. A small, informal survey of doctors is, however, underway.

The CMA received a letter from Health Canada on May 18 indicating that the department believes scientific evidence supports lower dose recommendations, that some patients receive considerably more and that the "apparent discrepancy" is motivating a partial review of the Medical Marijuana Access Regulations. Health Canada told CMAJ that amendments may be presented for consultation in 2007 or 2008.

CMA Director of the Office of Public Health Dr. Sam Shortt says the CMA does not approve of how medicinal marijuana is regulated considering the lack of studies correlating outcomes and dosages. Shortt advises doctors to read credible studies before authorizing marijuana use and to keep detailed clinical notes. The Canadian Medical Protective Association recommends physicians ask applicants to sign a release from liability.

[palmspringsbum]

Government-grown medical marijuana can't meet needs of patients: lawyer

by Jered Stuffco, Canadian News
December 6th, 2007


TORONTO - Lawyers for Canadian users of medical marijuana who want Ottawa to ease restrictions on where they get their pot wrapped up their case Wednesday by telling a Federal Court judge that government-approved marijuana doesn't compare to higher-quality strains available on the street.

Patients ought to be able to pick their own grower, said lawyer Alan Young, who accused Ottawa of rushing into drafting a program in 2003 that ultimately forced patients to use a substandard product - a violation of their constitutional rights.

"When the dust settles, what you're left with is a government simply decreeing that this is the way you are going to get your medicine," Young said.

"Governments don't know how to grow marijuana and don't know much about marijuana because for 80 years, they've been trying to convince us that it's harmful."

But since launching its controversial medicinal marijuana program, Health Canada has significantly improved the quality of its marijuana compared with earlier batches, meaning the case against the government doesn't stand up, said Health Canada lawyer Christopher Leafloor.

The applicants in the case haven't tried the most recent batches of cannabis grown by contractor Prairie Plant Systems (PPS), which is based in Flin Flon, Man., Leafloor said.

"Our position is that you can't really take seriously their claim that the PPS product isn't good enough in terms of strength when they haven't even tried it."

Leafloor said only one applicant in the case had tried the PPS product, and that trial was several years ago.

"That was an early version."

A PPS spokesman said in an interview that users who buy from the government are assured of getting a more consistent product than they would on the street.

"The beauty of the Health Canada product is it's always the same to the client in the sense that it's always grind the same, milled the same, dried the same and has the same THC content."

Leafloor also disagreed with the assertion that the government made an eleventh-hour decision in December 2003 that restricts patients from choosing their own growers.

"There's actually been a long history here," he said, noting that the government has been dealing with the issue and taking direction from Canadian courts since July 2000.

Leafloor also said the assertion that some strains of pot are better for treatment than others is based on user preference instead of quantifiable data.

"It's not enough for patients to say 'I prefer this so you have to give it to me."'

Wednesday's hearing marked the procedural culmination of a three-and-a-half-year process which Young hopes will eventually give experienced cannabis growers the opportunity to supply products specifically tailored to the needs of medical users.

The court could issue a ruling by the spring, he added.

The case also has implications on the way the government drafts and implements official policy, said Young, who is also a professor at York University's Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto.

Under the current Health Canada guidelines, users of so-called medical marijuana can either grow their own pot, have someone grow it for them or buy it from Health Canada. However, growers can only supply marijuana to one patient at a time.

Initially, the case centred upon 30 applicants who wanted to buy pot from a husband and wife who ran their own growing operation, Young said.

[palmspringsbum]

Feds “taxing” sick people who smoke weed

Northern Life
By Tracey Duguay
Date Published | Aug. 23, 2007


The phrase “it’s not easy to be green” obviously doesn’t apply to Canada, or at least not when it comes to the country’s fondness for a little ganja.

According to the United Nations’ 2007 World Drug Report, released last month, around 17 percent of Canadians aged 15-64 are lighting up on a regular basis.

Our country actually ranks fifth in cannabis use worldwide, with only New Guinea, Micronesia Fed. State, Zambia and Ghana coming in higher.

Canadians, it seems, are also fond of cocaine, again cracking the Top 5 list in the drug report. Spain leads the way in this category, followed by the United States, England, Canada and Italy.

While we may be snorting and puffing a lot, the good news is we’re not doing a lot of popping and shooting. When it comes to statistics on opiates, amphetamines and ecstasy, Canada slides down the list considerably.

Drugs are big business in Canada. Cannabis grow op busts make the news more and more frequently. They are no longer confined to rural settings. These illegal operations are now cropping up in houses, apartments and in one case a few years back, a very visible former brewery.

Even the government is capitalizing on this lucrative industry, says one group. Canadians for Safe Access (CSA), a group that advocates for medicinal marijuana use, has accused the federal government of making a substantial profit on the backs of gravely ill or dying Canadians.

Through an Access to Information request, CSA discovered the government is marking up its legally grown pot by 1,500 percent. The homegrown pot is purchased through the government’s sole supplier, Prairie Plant Systems, which grows it in a mine shaft in Flin Flon, Man., for $328 per kilo (or about $9 per ounce) and resold to users at $150 an ounce. That works out to about $5,000 profit per kilo.

The government’s response is that the advocacy groups aren’t factoring in additional costs like distribution and testing, which drive its overall costs up.

Around 1,816 people in Canada are legally entitled to possess marijuana for medical purposes. Close to 1,300 are allowed to grow it themselves or on behalf of a person that uses for medical reasons, while the rest are supposed to be buying it from the government.

However, given the price of the federally supplied pot, and the fact it isn’t approved as a therapeutic drug, which means it’s not covered by any federal, provincial or private insurance plans, some licensed users simply can’t afford it.

To add insult to injury, some users are also saying the government’s pot just isn’t good quality either.

Health Canada is now owed somewhere in the range of $150,00 to $300,000 from consumers of its pot who can’t afford to pay for their purchase, according to published reports. People in arrears are being cut off from their supply and some accounts have gone to collection agencies.

To add further fuel to the fire, there is currently a constitutional challenge to the actual law underway in a B.C. Supreme Court.

Two members of the Vancouver Island Compassion Society were busted in a May 2004 raid on charges of running an illegal pot grow op. They claim they were operating a marijuana research and cultivation facility on behalf of the organization.

Their lawyers are arguing that Health Canada has failed to live up to its side of the pot supply business because it has restricted access to the program, placed arbitrary limits on production, and is “supplying an inadequate source of cannabis.”

The controversy surrounding the prices and distribution of the marijuana has prompted Sheila Fraser, the Auditor General of Canada, to start a preliminary audit into user fees for the program. The results of the audit will be sent Parliament once the audit is complete.

Tracey Duguay is Northern Life’s associate editor.


<hr class=postrule><center><small>Copyright 2006 Laurentian Media Group. All rights reserved.</small></center>

[palmspringsbum]

Courts send a message in second chapter of grow-op 'ripoff' case

myKawartha.com
Date: 2007-12-18
By Mary Riley

<span class=postbigbold>"This was a grow operation of 18,000 plants..."Mr. Bagg</span>

An Ontario Superior Court justice sided with the Crown in sentencing a Port Perry man to prison for dressing as a police officer while ripping off a marijuana grow operation in 2003.

Gordon Churchill, 54, was sentenced in Whitby on Friday to 30 months in prison for his part in stealing marijuana plants from an $18 million grow operation near Norland.

Mr. Churchill entered a guilty plea in June to charges of production of a controlled substance, unauthorized possession of a firearm and misconduct by a peace officer.

In addition to the jail term, Justice Bruce Glass also ordered a 10-year prohibition from owning firearms, and that any property seized in the case be forfeited to the Crown.

Mr. Churchill was among six men, including his two sons, that Kawartha Lakes OPP charged in 2003 in connection to the case.

Court heard that the men, who were dressed as police officers, arrived to steal plants from the grow-op, where unknown to them, police were already conducting an investigation.

In July, Justice Glass sentenced three of the men. A fourth is scheduled for trial at a future date.

Shane Prince, 35, of Oshawa, is also among those charged.

He was also scheduled to be sentenced on Friday, but failed to appear in court.

Mr. Prince's lawyer told the judge his repeated attempts to contact his client by phone and letters had failed.

Justice Glass issued a warrant for Mr. Prince's arrest.

His lawyer also asked for, and was granted, permission to withdraw as counsel for the defendant.

Mr. Churchill's lawyer, Tom Balko told the court the men only had 31 plants when they were arrested, and that there was no evidence his client had any part in planning the theft. He maintained that Mr. Churchill's severe financial difficulties at the time drove him to take part in the enterprise.

He asked the court for a conditional sentence of two years less a day with "very strict terms" to allow Mr. Churchill to continue working his job as an operations manager for a Peterborough trucking firm.

Barry Walsh, Mr. Churchill's employer, testified that he has leukemia and is facing a bone marrow transplant. He said Mr. Churchill is "an excellent employee" whom he wanted to run the company while Mr. Walsh undergoes treatment.

Mr. Balko read aloud a letter from Mr. Churchill, in which his client blamed "severe debt stress," looming bankruptcy and poor judgement for his getting involved in the rip-off scheme.

In the letter, Mr. Churchill said he "needed another chance," saying the "humiliation and embarrassment" his actions caused "are worse than any jail term."

"I made irresponsible choices in desperate circumstances."

Mr. Churchill said that in the time since Mr. Walsh hired him, he had taken several job-related courses to improve his skills, and had also obtained a helicopter pilot's licence.

While he conceded his client was dressed in a shirt with the word 'Police' on it, Mr. Balko insisted Mr. Churchill had no idea firearms would be involved until he arrived at the scene.

(All of the defendants who have been sentenced in connection with this case to date have maintained that claim.)

Mr. Balko said that while Mr. Churchill was convicted and jailed on similar charges in 2001, "he has drastically changed his circumstances and how he lives his life."

The defence also pointed out that Mr. Churchill has been under strict house arrest for four years and was not permitted any contact with his sons for the first year.

"That was very difficult for this close-knit family," he said.

The judge interjected, citing his comments from the July sentencing of three of the other defendants in the case.

The judge made it clear he was not swayed by arguments about "onerous" bail conditions and the length of time the defendants have been under house arrest.

(Defence counsel for the defendants in the case have asked the judge to consider the time they spent under house arrest in his sentencing decisions.)

"The length of time of these proceedings are not to be laid on the doorstep of the administration of justice," Justice Glass said.

He reminded Mr. Balko that the time the men were under house arrest was because they were "pursuing the legal avenues open to them" while their cases wound through the courts, and suggested they were watching the outcome of each other's cases.

In addition, they were not in jail for that period of time.

"It is not due to the conduct of the Crown or the Court," he said. "And, contact with his sons was not permitted...because they were Mr. Churchill's co-accused in this matter."

Prosecutor Rick Bagg gave no quarter in the Crown's request of a sentence of three years, saying that Mr. Churchill had already served 11 months for similar offences in 2001.

He was, Mr. Bagg said, barely paroled (in 2002) when he again committed similar criminal activity.

Referring to the defence's submission that the men "only got 31 plants" at the scene, Mr. Bagg said sharply, "The only reason they got such a small amount was because the police were already there, on an investigation, and stopped them."

"And, who knows how many trips they made before (they were arrested)? There was a huge potential for profit..."

Mr. Bagg told the Court that grow-ops are often a mix of drugs and guns that constitutes a formula for violence; one that compromises the safety of police officers, the public and the criminals themselves.

He said it is the duty of the courts to send the message such actions won't be dealt with lightly.

"The people (running grow-ops) are protecting their turf," he said. "Innocent people can stumble on to these turf wars. And, (dressing as police) poses a tremendous danger to police officers...these people were wearing armoured vests, combat gear and clothing that said 'Police.'"

Calling Mr. Churchill a "danger to the public," Mr. Bagg told the Court that allowing Mr. Churchill to stay out of jail on a conditional sentence "sends a message to others considering the grow operation and drug business - you won't go to jail, you'll just be under house arrest."

Mr. Bagg also noted Mr. Churchill is "the father of two of the participants who made no effort to deter his sons," choosing instead to take part in the crime with them.

While he sympathized with Mr. Walsh's medical problems and the possible effect on his business, the Crown pointed out that Mr. Walsh "knew Mr. Churchill was facing serious charges" when he hired him.

"It is unfortunate...but, there are always other lives that are affected when people are sentenced to jail," he said.

"(This case) was not about a small amount (of pot) in a back yard," Mr. Bagg went on. "This was a grow operation of 18,000 plants...this problem in our community of drugs, guns and grow-ops is organized crime. We need to send a clear message."

In handing down the sentence, Justice Glass said Mr. Churchill's previous convictions and the 2003 incident show he "has not learned his lesson" and has no real remorse.

He noted the impersonation of police officers was a serious component of the case, saying such actions severely compromise officer safety during drug investigations.

The judge also said the public has a right to be confident that someone dressed in police clothing is, in fact, a police officer.

The judge summed up his thoughts:

"Ripping off a grow operation is risky at the best of times," he said. "It is not a simple, victimless crime. This is how people get killed."

[palmspringsbum]

Former top court judge, Le Dain, dies


CanWest News Service
Published: Wednesday, December 19, 2007


Former Supreme Court Justice Gerald Eric Le Dain, who also led a landmark commission into drug use in Canada in the '60s and '70s, has died.

Mr. Le Dain, who died in Toronto Tuesday, was 83.

Appointed to the Supreme Court in 1984 by Pierre Trudeau, the Montreal-born Mr. Le Dain was a law professor and dean of the Osgoode Hall law school.

But before being named to the country's top court, the Second World War veteran steered a commission of inquiry into the non-medical use of drugs, from 1969 to 1973.

The commission's report recommended marijuana be removed from the Narcotic Control Act and that the provinces control possession and cultivation, similar to government controls on the use of alcohol.

The LeDain commission also interviewed Beatle John Lennon and his wife Yoko Ono for the report.

"The one thing that can be said about marijuana is it's non-violent," Lennon said. "If any government wanted to use it to calm people, they have got the ultimate weapon."

Mr. Le Dain served on the Supreme Court for four years and retired in 1988.

His funeral will be held on Dec. 28 in Ottawa.

[palmspringsbum]

Remembering Justice Gerald LeDain

The Drug Policy Alliance
December 20, 2007


Justice Gerald LeDain, a retired judge who served on the Supreme Court of Canada, died Tuesday at the age of 83. Justice LeDain was the Chair of a Canadian commission examining the non-medical use of drugs from 1969 to 1973. Similar to the Shafer Commission in the U.S., the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs was a high-level independent commission whose recommendations turned out to be more far-reaching than anyone had anticipated. One of the commission's recommendations was that marijuana be decriminalized.

One of the awards given at the biennial International Drug Policy Reform Conference is named for Justice LeDain, and is awarded to those involved in law who have worked within official institutions when extremist pressures dominate government policies. Earlier this month, that award was given to Libby Davies, Member of Parliament for Vancouver East, the first Canadian after Justice LeDain himself to receive the award.

Other past recipients of the Justice Gerald Le Dain Award for Achievement in the Field of Law are listed in the program for the 2007 International Drug Policy Reform Conference Awards Dinner.


Arnold Trebach, founder of the Drug Policy Foundation, remembers Justice LeDain:

"It was many years ago during the very early days of the life of the Drug Policy Foundation, the original name for what is now DPA, that I happened to be watching the Academy Awards on television. It occurred to me that we needed such awards and honors for the field of drug policy reform. I was then the President of DPF. After much discussion and a good deal of work from our tiny staff, mainly consisting of Kevin Zeese and I, the project was launched. We sought to name the awards after our heroes. Gerald LeDain was certainly one of them. Few people realize the level of hate directed at drug users and drug policy reformers decades ago. Drugs such as marijuana were objects of true fear.

At that time, the impact of the report of the so-called LeDain Commission was stunning. It was the first in then-recent history to take a thorough scholarly approach to the subject of drug use, particularly dealing with marijuana. It brought out facts that were often ignored and disused the views of ordinary, likeable users of that drug. The report also suggested considering decriminalizing marijuana possession. It even hinted that the drug ought to be legalized. Throughout the report was a deep concern that the youth of Canada ought not to be alienated and stigmatized with marijuana convictions.

Before the names of any of our heroes were listed with their awards we contacted them by letter and telephone. I am not sure who -- whether Kevin or I -- contacted the justice first but I do recall many discussions with him. He was, as might be expected, gentle, modest and quite open to conversation. Our contacts reflected the gentle and kind nature of the report. After a while he agreed to have his name used -- and the rest is history. Justice LeDain deserved all of the honors bestowed upon him.

It was good to see that Libby Davies was the 2007 recipient of the LeDain Award. She richly deserves it also. The first Canadian to receive the award was the justice himself. After much thought within DPF, we contacted the justice and asked if he would be open to receiving the award named after him. He eventually agreed and I had the honor presenting the award to him at the award dinner in 1990. It was an uplifting event for all of us.

Justice Gerald LeDain should be remembered for his gentle sense of justice with a modest human touch."

-- Arnold Trebach

[palmspringsbum]

Gerald Le Dain, 83

<span class=postbigbold>Judge chaired inquiry into drug use</span>

By The Canadian Press
Sun. Dec 23 - 5:24 AM

OTTAWA — Gerald Le Dain, a judge who led a well-regarded but ultimately little-heeded commission on the non-medical use of drugs, has died at 83.

The Supreme Court of Canada said in a release that Le Dain died on Dec. 18 in Toronto. Cause of death was not given.

From 1969 to 1973, he chaired the federal inquiry into drug use.

Its four lengthy reports marked a turning point in official North American thinking about recreational drugs in general, particularly marijuana.

The commission did not reach consensus on policy recommendations but all members supported movement toward decriminalization, especially in the case of cannabis.

In 1978, then prime minister Pierre Trudeau promised legislation that would decriminalize minor cases of possession but his government was replaced by the Tories under Joe Clark and the issue went into limbo.

Gerald Eric Le Dain was born in Nov. 27, 1924 in Montreal.

After service overseas during the Second World War, he enrolled at McGill University and obtained his law degree in 1949.

That year, he pursued further studies in France, at the University of Lyon.

He practised with a Montreal firm and between 1953 and 1959, and again from 1966 to 1967, taught law at McGill.

Le Dain became dean of Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto in 1967 and was called to the bar of Ontario the following year.

Two years later, he was appointed to the Federal Court of Appeal and was elevated to the Supreme Court of Canada in May 1984, retiring four years later.

He was made a Companion of the Order of Canada in 1989.

The Supreme Court says Le Dain’s funeral is set for 2 p.m. on Friday, Dec. 28, at Christ Church Cathedral in Ottawa.

[palmspringsbum]

Supreme Court judge known best for pot recommendation

<table class=posttable align=right width=210><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg src=bin/ledain_gerald.jpg></td></tr><tr><td class=postcell><span class=postbold>Gerald Le Dain was appointed to the Federal Court of Appeal in 1975, where he served until Pierre Trudeau named him to the Supreme Court of Canada in May 1984. </span></tr></td></table>

Don Butler
Ottawa Citizen


Tuesday, December 25, 2007


OTTAWA - Gerald Le Dain, who died last week at 83, was only 44 years old when he was handed the assignment that would make him an improbable counter-culture icon.

In 1969, Canada was grappling with a new and - for those in authority - deeply disturbing phenomenon: young Canadians experimenting with recreational drugs, including marijuana, LSD and speed. Cannabis use in particular, was exploding.

The federal government responded by appointing Le Dain, then dean of Osgoode Hall Law School, to head a five-person commission of inquiry asked to look at all available knowledge about the non-medical use of "sedative, stimulant, tranquilizing, hallucinogenic and other psychotropic drugs or substances," including their effect on users, why they were becoming popular and what the federal government could do about it.

What quickly became known as the Le Dain commission held 46 days of public hearings and heard from 12,000 Canadians. It issued four lengthy reports which, among other things, called for lighter sentences for drug offences, treatment for heroin addicts and warnings about the dangers of nicotine and alcohol. But it was its recommendation to decriminalize simple possession of marijuana that caused the greatest sensation.

The commission concluded that the maximum penalties for cannabis offences were disproportionate to any harm marijuana's use might cause. The number of people convicted for marijuana offences had doubled annually between 1967 and 1971, but the law was still widely flouted, catching only about one per cent of users.

"A law which can only be enforced in a haphazard and accidental manner is an unjust law," the commission declared.

Many of the Le Dain commission's recommendations were too explosive for politicians of the day to embrace. But judges soon started moderating sentences and began giving offenders absolute discharges for simple possession.

"It was an important report transitionally," says Ed Ratushny, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, who calls the commission Le Dain's most significant public contribution. The Le Dain report, he says, "provided a context and a blueprint that, even though not immediately implemented, shone the way to the future."

Gerald Eric Le Dain was born in Montreal on Nov. 27, 1924. During the 1950s and early 1960s, he practised law in that city, advising Quebec governments on constitutional matters, and taught at McGill University. He became dean of Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto in 1967, a position he held for five years.

Le Dain was appointed to the Federal Court of Appeal in 1975, where he served until Pierre Trudeau named him to the Supreme Court of Canada in May 1984. He was the first Federal Court judge to be elevated to the Supreme Court, and the first judge with a strong background in both Quebec civil law and English common law to serve on the high court.

In their 2003 book about former Supreme Court chief justice Brian Dickson, authors Robert Sharpe and Kent Roach describe Le Dain as a painstaking judge who agonized over every case, not well-suited to dealing with the Court's heavy docket.

The judgment in a constitutional challenge of Quebec's language law, Bill 101, in 1987 was Le Dain's undoing, they write. Given the go-ahead to write the decision, Le Dain struggled to complete it and his other court work, and was eventually hospitalized for depression. Dickson quickly concluded Le Dain would not be able to come back to the court.

Le Dain's forced retirement took effect on Nov. 30, 1988. He was 64 and never worked again.

Le Dain's funeral will be held Friday in Ottawa.

© CanWest News Service 2007

[palmspringsbum]

Karen Selick: Don't extradict Marc Emery to the U.S.

The National Post
Posted: December 31, 2007, 3:23 PM by Marni Soupcoff
Karen Selick

<span class=postbigbold>An open letter to Rob Nicholson, Canada's Minister of Justice</span>


Dear Mr. Nicholson,

On January 21, 2008, an extradition hearing will begin in Vancouver for Marc Emery, Canada’s pre-eminent activist for the legalization of marijuana. Marc has been charged in the U.S. with conspiring to manufacture and distribute marijuana, and conspiring to launder money. If convicted under U.S. law, he faces possible life imprisonment without parole.

Should Marc be extradited to the U.S.? The Canadian court will almost certainly say yes. It has little choice under the Extradition Act. Marc openly admits selling marijuana seeds over the Internet to customers around the world, including the United States, for years. His conduct would have been grounds for criminal charges here, although Canadian authorities never chose to charge him. But that’s enough under the Act to make it mandatory for the judge to commit him for surrender to U.S. authorities.

That’s where you come in, Mr. Justice Minister. Once the court has ruled, the Extradition Act gives you discretion to refuse to surrender Marc if it “would be unjust or oppressive having regard to all the relevant circumstances.”

Here are some of the circumstances you might consider relevant.

From 1999 until he was arrested in 2005, Marc declared on his income tax return that his occupation was “marijuana seed vendor.” He paid $578,000 in income taxes into federal and B.C. government coffers. He gave Canada Revenue Agency access to his bank statements and explained all his cash flows to them. The CRA graciously accepted his money without ever taking any action to put a stop to all this criminal activity.

If you believe that all Canadians benefit from taxes being collected and governments spending that tax money (I don’t, but most Canadians do), then logically you will have to concede that Marc has been a huge benefactor to the Canadian people.

As for the money laundering charge, maybe all Canadians should face U.S. indictments for having conspired with Marc to transform Americans’ outlays on recreational drugs into Canadian outlays on health care, roads, schools, etc.

Marc has helped Canadians in other ways, too. When Canada was compelled in 2000 to legalize medical marijuana by the R. v. Parker decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, confusion reigned. Although the court had said that individuals suffering the daily pain of illnesses such as epilepsy, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, cancer and AIDS could use marijuana with their doctors’ approval, there was nowhere they could legally acquire it.

Authorized users who asked Health Canada how to get their marijuana were given the suggestion that they purchase it online from Marc Emery.

For eight years, Marc sent every federal Member of Parliament a free subscription to his magazine Cannabis Culture. Every issue included a copy of his seed catalogue. Every single MP and all of their office staff turned a blind eye to his activities, just as Canada Revenue Agency and Health Canada had done.

The prohibition against selling marijuana seeds in Canada went unenforced for years, but the benefits of those seed sales were accepted unhesitatingly by Canadian authorities. It would be the height of hypocrisy and injustice for this country to now hand over its benefactor to a foreign government for a prosecution it declined to pursue itself.

But there’s more. Go to any internet search engine and enter “marijuana seeds.” You’ll find many seed vendors still operating without prosecution in British Columbia and other Canadian provinces. Why is the U.S. government not seeking the extradition of these vendors? Why just Marc and his two employees Michelle Rainey and Greg Williams?

I think the answer is obvious. The so-called “BC3” have taken a principled, public stand against the U.S. government’s war on drugs. Marc in particular is a highly effective spokesman for his cause. He was never in this business primarily for financial gain, and generally kept only enough of his marijuana seed profits to live on. Instead, he has donated over $4-million and countless hours to fund court challenges, establish compassion clubs for medical marijuana users, pay medical bills for activists, sponsor conferences and protests, fund ballot initiatives, fund political campaigns and so on. For over a decade, he has been a huge thorn in the side of politicians and bureaucrats who disagree with him on the political issue of legalizing marijuana.

The Extradition Act requires you, Mr. Justice Minister, to refuse to surrender a person if the request for extradition is “made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the person by reason of their…political opinion….” Please consider Marc’s long history of idealistic activism and tell the U.S. government that you won’t let them haul this politically motivated Canadian hero off to one of their jails.

Karen Selick is a lawyer in Belleville, Ontario. kas@karenselick.com

[palmspringsbum]

Thu, January 3, 2008

Job drug-testing debate not over
By GLENN KAUTH, SUN MEDIA

A court ruling against a fired marijuana user won't stop the province's human rights commission seeking changes to workplace drug-testing policies, a lawyer on the case said yesterday.

"I think automatic termination is troubling because you're denying someone employment," said Arman Chak, an Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission lawyer who represented the fired worker, John Chiasson, during a recent court case.

Chak noted the commission hasn't yet decided on whether to challenge a ruling from the Alberta Court of Appeal rejecting Chiasson's claims that a Fort McMurray employer's drug-testing policies were discriminatory. While Chiasson himself admitted he was only a recreational pot smoker, a lower-court judge had earlier ruled that in firing anyone who tested positive for drugs, engineering and construction company Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) had essentially treated him as an addict and therefore disabled.

Alberta's human-rights legislation forbids discrimination on the basis of disability. The appeal judges, however, have now ruled that safety concerns justify workplace drug-testing policies, thereby overturning the earlier court decision.

For Chak, the debate isn't over. "Is that the best way to deal with him? I think that's a level of disrespect that we don't expect in Alberta," he said of Chiasson's firing.

Chak pointed to evidence that a urine test showing the presence of marijuana doesn't necessarily mean a person is impaired. He noted that in Chiasson's case, the worker had started his job as a receiving clerk at a Syncrude Canada construction site by the time the test results came back. By then, it had been weeks since he had smoked the pot.

"Those metabolites in the blood system do not prove impairment on the job," said Bob Cyre of Edmonton's Mobile Access Compassionate Resources Organization Society, which assists people who use marijuana for medical purposes.

[palmspringsbum]

Colby Cosh: A matter of national sovereignty

The National Post
Posted: January 04, 2008, 11:52 AM by Marni Soupcoff
Colby Cosh

On Dec. 31, the National Post comment pages published an open letter by columnist Karen Selick that asked Justice Minister Rob Nicholson to intervene in the extradition process against "Prince of Pot" Marc Emery, which is scheduled to begin Jan. 21. For years, Mr. Emery has been openly running a lucrative business in mail-order marijuana seeds, selling to customers in both Canada and the U.S. Though this is technically illegal in both countries, the Vancouver police and the federal authorities took an indulgent view for years; Mr. Emery even reported his income to Revenue Canada and paid taxes, listing his occupation explicitly as "marijuana seed vendor."

He was not arrested until July, 2005, when the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration filed federal charges against him in Washington State. Mr. Emery was nabbed by the RCMP in Nova Scotia, and the Vancouver bookstore out of which he had run his business for years was suddenly raided. Perhaps some modern-day Claude Rains in a VPD uniform stood nearby, declaring: "I am shocked -- shocked! -- to find that marijuana seeds are being sold here!"

Now Mr. Emery faces the possibility of lifelong imprisonment in a U.S. federal penitentiary without parole. Needless to say, it is a fate he has done much to tempt. He has been an overt opponent of the DEA and the U.S. government, and never concealed his seed sales to the United States or made any effort to avoid selling to American customers. Quite the contrary: As he told CBS's 60 Minutes last year, "The whole idea was that I would help facilitate the growth of so much marijuana that the DEA and all the agencies of the United States would never be able to destroy it at the rate I would help create it and that, ultimately, I, one man, would neutralize the work of the entire DEA with their multi-billion dollar budget."

He has taken his battle to the propaganda front too, making highly visible donations to anti-prohibition groups in the United States. It's no surprise to him that the Americans want to clap him in irons. What might have been a surprise was the election of a Conservative government in Canada, one which has made tougher laws against marijuana growers and users a cornerstore of its political agenda.

Still, that should not deter us from a fair assessment of his incredibly risky argument-by-botany. Many of those who consider Mr. Emery's plight get distracted by what sometimes seems like a desire for martyrdom on his part, or by the ethical and medical considerations surrounding the use of marijuana. The plain fact is that Canadian law never practically considered his seed business a major peril to public order or morals, or it would have done something about it. Dozens, perhaps hundreds of mail-order growers are continuing in the trade in B.C. even now. Marijuana is recognized as having medical benefits by our government, as it is in the law of nearly a dozen U.S. states. The U.S. is using the technical presence of an unenforced law on our books to carry its drug war onto our soil. If the Honourable Mr. Nicholson allows this to reach its logical conclusion, and Mr. Emery is sent south for notional crimes committed entirely on Canadian soil, it will constitute a blow to our national sovereignty.

After all, just imagine for a moment that the positions were reversed -- that by some historical quirk, it was the U.S. that had adopted liberal attitudes toward marijuana, while we were suppressing it here at home with paramilitary force and penalties normally reserved for killers and armed robbers. Does anybody think for a moment that a Canadian politician or prosecutor could blithely dash off a letter to Massachusetts or Texas and have U.S. law enforcement mobilized from coast to coast to deliver a peaceable, otherwise law-abiding American seed dealer into our hands?

The Americans wouldn't stand for it. They'd raise hell about foreigners telling them how to run their country. And they'd be right to do it. The principle of extradition between friendly neighbouring democracies is an important one, but where ideas of justice are expressed in such a different manner as they are on a point like this -- where the people of two countries so plainly disagree about what is right -- co-operation is tantamount to a surrender of values.

ColbyCosh@gmail.com

[palmspringsbum]

Canada's Tolerance
On Marijuana Fades

The Wall Street Journal
By DOUGLAS BELKIN
January 8, 2008; Page A14


The marijuana harvest in British Columbia generated about 7 billion Canadian dollars (US$7 billion) last year, making it one of the most lucrative industries in the Canadian province. But after a string of high-profile arrests and slayings -- including the execution-style murders of six people in October -- the easygoing attitude that has long surrounded marijuana in Canada is under attack.

Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper is calling for a cultural shift, to be enforced by what his political opponents are calling an American-style war on drugs. He has introduced legislation that would set mandatory minimum jail sentences for marijuana growers and traffickers, and he is seeking more money for enforcement and prosecution.

"What we are up against...is a culture that since the 1960s has at the minimum not discouraged drug use and often romanticized it or made it cool, made it acceptable," Mr. Harper said when he announced his plan in October. The bill is expected to come up for legislative debate next month.

<table class=posttable align=right width=222><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg src=bin/chart_marijuana-consumers.gif alt="Chart of top five per capita marijuana using nations."></td></tr></table>Canadians use marijuana more than any country in Europe, Asia or Latin America, according to the United Nations' 2007 World Drug Report. Only people in Papua New Guinea, Micronesia, Ghana and Zambia smoke more. That news in July elicited the headline "The True North Stoned and Free," in the typically staid Canadian newspaper the Globe and Mail. A poll last summer by the Angus Reid Global Monitor found that 55% of Canadians think marijuana should be legalized.

Starting with the efforts of a group of American war resisters in the 1970s, British Columbia has been at the forefront of Canada's marijuana industry. By 2000, marijuana was grown in 17,500 homes in the province, according to a study by Simon Fraser University economist Steve Easton.

In 2001, the Canadian government showed a tolerance for cannabis by becoming the first nation to regulate its consumption for medical reasons. In 2004, the government, headed then by Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, reintroduced a bill to decriminalize possession of less than 15 grams of marijuana, making it subject to a fine but leaving no criminal record. The bill never came up for a vote.

In Vancouver, meanwhile, large profits, lenient laws, lax enforcement and an established smuggling and money-laundering infrastructure attracted organized crime. Though greater Vancouver remains one of the safest metropolitan areas in North America, at least 19 fatal drug-related shootings took place there last year. A double murder occurred at a Chinese restaurant in August, and two of the six people slain in October in an apartment building were innocent bystanders. In November, a reputed gang leader was shot outside his C$5 million mansion.

And then, early on Dec. 4, in an arrest that highlighted Vancouver's role as a base for the global distribution of illicit drugs, police arrested Yong Long Ye, alleging he imported drugs from the U.S. and Southeast Asia and exported it across North America and to Australia.

One of Mr. Ye's alleged associates operated a greenhouse on the outskirts of Vancouver that was jammed with 9,000 marijuana plants. Pat Fogarty, a police officer who oversaw the investigation, described being in the greenhouse as "like walking in a forest."

Prime Minister Harper's bill proposes to beef up sentences for drug traffickers at all levels, but it is the stiff penalties for small marijuana growers not involved with organized crime that have raised concern in Vancouver.

"When I think about drug problems, I don't think about marijuana," said Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan, who favors legalizing the drug. "In my experience, the people who smoke marijuana are not a problem for public order or crime."

Canadian judges can use their discretion about whether to sentence drug offenders to prison. Mr. Easton's research showed that a small fraction of them serve jail time and that the average sentence of those who do is about four months.

Mr. Harper's bill proposes a six-month mandatory sentence for growing as little as one marijuana plant for the purposes of trafficking.

Senator Larry Campbell, a former Vancouver mayor and former drug officer with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, disagrees with Mr. Harper's approach, and he supports legalization. Mr. Campbell said the high rate of jail and recidivism in the U.S. is proof that the war on drugs to the south has failed.

"Harper is looking for a wedge issue, and he's found it," Mr. Campbell said. "It makes no sense, but it makes good politics."

Write to Douglas Belkin at doug.belkin@wsj.com

[palmspringsbum]

Why is Canada copying failure?

<span class=postbigbold>The Harper government's U.S.-style tough line on drugs benefits no one but criminals and their syndicates</span>

Larry Campbell
Special to the Sun

The Vancouver Sun
Tuesday, January 08, 2008


Is there really anyone anywhere in Canada who believes that U.S. drug policies are working? Or that they are deserving of being copied here?

This is the direction Prime Minister Stephen Harper would have us go.

More prisons and more people in prisons has not worked for our southern neighbours, and there is no logic behind the move to increase criminal penalties for drugs.

In fact, logic dictates that we move away from criminalization and focus instead on a policy that emphasizes medical intervention for those Canadians who abuse drugs.

What about our teens? In the pique of a rebellious phase they grow a few plants, get arrested and end up getting their higher education in prison rather then university. And the burden of a criminal record makes them pariahs in the job market.

Can we afford -- either financially or socially -- to emulate a system that has created in the U.S. the most incarcerated population on Earth? Or should we continue to distinguish ourselves from our neighbour by continuing to exhibit humane and socially profitable measures that make our citizens some of the healthiest and most compassionate people on the planet?

This Conservative government refuses to look at the science, or even the simple facts.

Minimum sentences for non-violent offenders may play well with a hang 'em high crowd, but it will do nothing to solve drug problems in this country. The Conservatives have spread their "big lie" for so long that they have begun to believe it, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

We should be putting our efforts into increased treatment for addiction, education and increased medical treatment for those with mental disabilities. We should also legalize marijuana in this country to keep the profits from being funnelled into criminal hands.

Did you know that in the U.S. the government produces and distributes about half a pound each month in marijuana cigarettes to medical patients?

The Canadian government could produce it like cigarettes, put the derived funds straight into health care and addictions treatment and programs. The pot could be sold in liquor stores where children will not have easy access and the quality can be monitored.

When drugs are produced by regulated industries, they cost a mere fraction of the price of the products produced and marketed by clandestine criminal organizations.

By leaving some drugs in the hands of criminals and their syndicates we leave control of the purity, dosage and pricing totally in the wrong hands. Why not take away their motivation for involvement in the drugs trade?

Regulated industries all have motivation for legitimacy. They hire working people who live in our communities and spend their income in our stores and shops. We all have an investment in the task of reducing drug harms and that investment is one that can either prove to be profitable, or costly.

Criminals have control of these substances only because we make the drugs illegal. Through legalization we have regulation and we remove the death grip the gangs and cartels have on the drugs black market.

If a poll were to be conducted among these drug dealing thugs and gangsters, asking if they prefer prohibition or legalization, prohibition would be the unanimous choice. Legalization runs counter to their needs.

It is truly prohibition that continues to line the pockets of those criminals who are the real threats to all our communities.

Prohibition is a failure that bears no resemblance to any logical solution to our drug problems.

We must end prohibition, not expand it.

Senator Larry W. Campbell is a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), an international, non-profit educational organization made up of current and former members of law enforcement who believe the existing U.S. drug policies have failed.

<hr class=postrule>
<center><small>© The Vancouver Sun 2008</small></center>

[palmspringsbum]

This is a big win.

Federal Court strikes down regulation limiting growers of medical marijuana

The Canadian Press
January 11, 2008

TORONTO - Canadians who are prescribed marijuana to treat their illnesses will no longer be forced to rely on the federal government as a supplier following a Federal Court ruling that struck down a key restriction in Ottawa's controversial medical marijuana program.

The decision by Judge Barry Strayer, released late Thursday, essentially grants medical marijuana users more freedom in picking their own grower and allows growers to supply the drug to more than one patient.

It's also another blow to the federal government, whose attempts to tightly control access to medical marijuana have prompted numerous court challenges.

Currently, medical users can grow their own pot but growers can't supply the drug to more than one user at a time.

Lawyers for medical users argued that restriction effectively established Health Canada as the country's sole legal provider of medical marijuana.

They also said the restriction was unfair, and that it prevented seriously ill Canadians from obtaining the drug they needed to treat their debilitating illnesses.

In his decision, Strayer called the provision unconstitutional and arbitrary, as it "caused individuals a major difficulty with access..."

Ottawa must also reconsider requests made by a group of medical users who brought the matter to court to have a single outside supplier as their designated producer, Strayer said in his 23-page decision.

While the government has argued that medical users who can't grow their own marijuana can obtain it from its contract manufacturer, fewer than 20 per cent of patients actually use the government's supply, Strayer wrote.

"In my view it is not tenable for the government, consistently with the right established in other courts for qualified medical users to have reasonable access to marijuana, to force them either to buy from the government contractor, grow their own or be limited to the unnecessarily restrictive system of designated producers," he wrote.

Ron Marzel, a Toronto lawyer representing the group of medical users who brought the matter before the Federal Court, called the decision a "great remedy" for his clients.

"All this means is that the limit - the one-to-one ratio - it's the last nail in the coffin for that ratio," he said in an interview.

"The court has said, 'Look, unequivocally, this is unconstitutional, it's arbitrary. All the reasons you've provided us with so far for this one-to-one ratio, they don't pass muster. We don't buy it, we don't accept it."'

The provision had been struck down by the courts before, but was reinstated by the government who contracted Prairie Plant Systems Inc. in Flin Flon, Man., to provide the drug to patients.

"(It was) constitutionally suspect from the beginning," said lawyer Alan Young, who argued in court on behalf of the sick.

"My position always was that if you're going to do something like that, you'd better have an adequate alternative."

Ottawa could either rewrite the regulations, come up with a new ratio, "or they can simply leave it as an open market so that people who are experienced and have the right secure facility will be able to apply to grow for 10 patients, 20 patients," Young said.

The government may also draft quality-control regulations for outside suppliers to ensure patients get the best product possible, said Marzel.

But he believes the Crown will appeal the decision.

Four of the original applicants died before the case, which began in 2004, was heard in December, Marzel said.

Previous governments have been uncomfortable with their role as cannabis supplier.

Former Liberal health minister Anne McLellan, an unabashed opponent of the government's medical marijuana program, was reluctant to provide the drug to patients.

Young believes Ottawa is just biding its time until pharmaceutical companies come up with marijuana products and it can "wash its hands" of it.

[palmspringsbum]

Isn't Alan Young the guy Emory used to call a WingNut on his forums all the time?

Ottawa loses medical marijuana challenge

The National Post
Meagan Fitzpatrick, Canwest News Service
Published: Friday, January 11, 2008


The federal government lost another court challenge to its controversial medical marijuana program, and now has 30 days to decide whether to appeal the ruling that declared one of its key policies unconstitutional.

Under the current set of regulations, licensed producers are only allowed to grow the drug for one patient at a time. Federal Court Judge Barry Strayer said that one-to-one ratio violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The decision, the latest in a string of court cases, will essentially mean more choice for approved medical marijuana users and should provide easier access for them to the drug.

"What the federal court effectively did was assert that the government of Canada does not have a monopoly over the production and distribution of medical marijuana," said Alan Young, one of the lawyers that launched the court battle on behalf of 30 patients.

Authorized users who cannot grow their own marijuana because they are too ill, or for other reasons, must then rely on a sole source provider -- either a licensed private producer, if they can find one willing to produce only for them, or the government, which buys the plants from a Saskatchewan-based company.

"In my view it is not tenable for the government, consistently with the right established in other courts for qualified medical users to have reasonable access to marijuana, to force them either to buy from the government contractor, grow their own or be limited to the unnecessarily restrictive system of designated producers," Judge Strayer wrote in his decision, which was released late Thursday.

The one-to-one ratio was first struck down by an Ontario appeal court in 2003, but the government reinstated the policy several months later, prompting the current court challenge.

"We're reviewing the decision," said Paul Duchesne, a spokesman for Health Canada, which regulates the program. He would not comment further and did not indicate how quickly the government would decide about appealing the ruling. "As soon as there is a decision we will make that clear," he said.

Mr. Young and his co-counsel Ron Menzel described the court's ruling as a "nail in the coffin" of the one-to-one ratio restriction.

"In theory, patients now have a choice whether to buy from the government or whether to create the small collectives of patients that go to an experienced and knowledgeable grower," said Mr. Young.

There are about 2,000 people legally allowed to use marijuana for medical purposes but fewer than 20% buy it from the government's supplier. Some patients say the quality is poor and others say only one strain of the plant is offered -- different strains having unique therapeutic effects.

"It's a clear message to Ottawa that they can't stand in the way of providing much-needed medication for these individuals," said Mr. Menzel.

He does expect, however, that the government will appeal the decision.

If it does, or if it introduces a policy that only slightly changes the ratio, the lawyers say they will head back into court. Mr. Young said they will fight for a measure called supervisory jurisdiction, which would require Health Canada to submit progress reports to the court on the program's operation.

Strayer has already denied that request but Young said he will try again and has not ruled out lawsuits against Health Canada.

"I'm just trying to clean up the law and to ensure that sick people have proper, lawful access to a medicine of their choice," said Mr. Young, a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto. "But because of all the obstacles that have been put in that path over the last eight years, there will reach a point where it's no longer about trying to use the courts to try and improve the program but it will be about punishing Health Canada for their incorrigibility."

<hr class=postrule><center><small>Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.</small></center>

[palmspringsbum]

Last updated at 9:55 PM on 11/01/08

Watch for med-pot program to go up in smoke

PETER HECKBERT
The Truro Daily News

The federal government lost its medical marijuana supply monopoly the other day in a court ruling that already has the legal beagles in Ottawa scrambling to fix.

On one of many court challenges of the federal restrictions on medical pot supplies, Judge Barry Strayer basically decreed that qualified users should have more freedom in selecting where their medicine comes from.

Prior to the decision, those people registered with the federal program could grow their own herb or buy it from the government’s official supplier, Prairie Plant Systems Inc. They could not get someone else to grow it for them nor could they legally purchase it from your local reefer dealer.

Growing marijuana to the standard required by patients is a complicated affair. Despite one of its nicknames, medicinal marijuana does not grow like a weed. It takes considerable knowledge, equipment and time to produce a useable crop. Someone who is already contending with a terminal illness, like many of the people registered in the program are, may not have the energy to maintain a grow op for the little bit of herb they may require.

Part of the problem is that only 20 per cent of the people in the program get their supply from the government source. Apparently, there were some quality problems with the initial marijuana produced in Prairie Plant Systems underground grow out west. Whatever the reason, people are not taking advantage of the product offered by the government’s official supplier.

While the people in the program may be somewhat relieved with the ruling, they better not get too comfy because, after all, this is the law reform Tories we’re talking about. They could very easily pull the plug on the whole program and revert back to the good ol’ days, when people could die in just as much discomfort as they could stand.

In fact, I’ll go out on a limb and suggest the feds will go through the motions of appealing this week’s ruling while behind closed doors, the boots are being put to the medicinal marijuana program. Its demise will be announced at 4:53 p.m., Ottawa time, on the Friday prior to a long weekend, just to ensure no one is home when the media hordes start beating the bushes for comment. Oh, wait. The media hordes in the nation’s capital have also been known to blast off early on a long weekend so any coverage of the announcement will be slim, at best.

The Stephen Harper-led Conservatives like to brag that their mandates is to clean up this country. I figure they’re just begging for an excuse to shut down the medical marijuana program once and for all. The higher the program’s nuisance factor climbs, the greater the justification to end the valuable program.

And the sad thing about it would be some members of the federal Conservative party would be proud as peacocks to be able to lay claim to having at least part of a hand in the program’s end.

Instead of listening to the patients, the federal government would rather live with the perception that the program is more bother than its worth. That way, it will be easier for them to trash it, despite the measure of relief it has afforded all of the participants.

Peter Heckbert is an editor of the Truro Daily News. He can be reached anytime at pheckbert@trurodaily.com

[palmspringsbum]

Man arrested in raid says pot for medical purposes; Case yet to go to court

The Sun Times
Posted By SCOTT DUNN
January 12, 2008


<table class=posttable align=right width=300><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg src=bin/kerr_james.jpg alt="James Kerr, who suffers from MS, says he uses marijuana to counter the effects of the disease."></td></tr></table>A Meaford man who was busted last week says he's not a drug trafficker, but was growing and using pot for medicinal purposes - with his doctor's knowledge but without a Health Canada licence.

Grey County OPP have charged both James Kerr, 35, and his partner, Celena Negovetich, 30, with production of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking on Jan. 4.

Kerr said after the bust his family doctor finally signed the medical use of marijuana form, which he'd had for a year. Kerr said he mailed the licence application in this week.

Now it's up to Health Canada to decide whether to grant Kerr a licence to legally grow and possess pot for medical purposes.

Kerr, who contacted The Sun Times after his name appeared in story this week about a drug raid at his home, said he was diagnosed in September 2005 with multiple sclerosis, a disease of the central nervous system with no cure. It causes him to suffer attacks of prolonged muscle spasms and headaches which are relieved with marijuana, which Kerr calls medicine.

Kerr said his health is already worse without pot.

"My left hand is curled up, weak and almost useless. My left leg feels like it weighs 200 pounds and is weak. I'm noticeably limping now and its only been one week without medicine."

He has constant headaches and if tries to use his curled hand, the pain is "excruciating," he said.

After the bust, Kerr said police called the Children's Aid Society. Kerr's kids were placed with their mother in Collingwood while the CAS investigates. Now Kerr is anxious to get his kids back.

Kerr said he wishes police had better understood what they were dealing with before they pounded on his front door and announced they had a search warrant.

He opened the door and was immediately pushed against a wall and handcuffed, he said. His kids weren't home when police arrived.

He told the officers he suffers from MS and grows and uses marijuana but was told to "shut up." Kerr said he told police where to find the marijuana and once they did, they arrested him.

He said he was denied his request for his hat and coat on the way out the door and that police broke a shelf and hinges to a cabinet where he told them he stored the marijuana.

Staff Sgt. Rick Sinnamon said it's best during drug raids to handcuff people for police and the resident's safety.

The police report on the raid said Kerr was co-operative, Sinnamon added.

He wouldn't comment on Kerr's complaints because the matter is before the court, but noted there is a police complaints process. He said police obtained a search warrant from a justice of the peace and the search was lawful.

"Anybody that knows me knows that I have multiple sclerosis," Kerr said. "And the way they came in here, like with seven officers and they thought they had a huge operation and everything . . ."

Said Sinnamon: "I'm quite positive there's people out there for legitimate reasons in their mind, that they're suffering from some sort of medical-type problem that they're using some sort of drug to allow them some ability to function.

"And whether that's right or wrong, you and I can't decide that. That's up to the government. The law would have to be changed," he said. "There isn't anything right now that's allowing us to overlook that."

It is legal to use pot for medical relief, with Health Canada's approval. There were 2,261 people with a licences to use marijuana and 1,581 to grow pot as of October, Health Canada's website says.

Kerr has been a stay-home dad since his illness prevented him from working in the lumber industry, he said. He lives with his partner in a rented apartment in a well-kept house in Meaford.

Kerr has explained his pot use to his kids, aged 10 and 11. He said he only uses it in his bedroom, which he kept locked, from a supply kept in a locked cabinet. He smokes it outside when his kids are at his home, he said.

Kerr said he won custody of the children in family court, where his medical use of marijuana and intention to obtain a licence to do so were disclosed.

He said his application for a licence to use and grow marijuana sat in his doctor's office for a year awaiting the doctor's signature. Kerr said his doctor was busy and had to do research before signing off.

Kerr said both that doctor and his neurologist advised him privately to smoke pot because it relieved his symptoms. His family doctor suggested he use four grams per day, Kerr said. The doctor could not be reached for comment Friday.

Marijuana users say privately that doctors are reluctant to prescribe marijuana because it sticks their neck out with police and the College of Physicians and Surgeons. It's just easier to get pot and use it under the radar of police, they say.

Police said in a news release Wednesday that they seized packaged marijuana with an estimated street value of $6,820 and $1,000 worth of marijuana plants.

Kerr says that's an overestimate.

He said he packaged the marijuana in one-ounce (28-gram) packages to ensure he uses no more or less than his doctor suggested. At four grams per day, each package was a one-week supply. Individual packaging guarded against potential loss of his supply to rot.

Under the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations, if five grams daily use is approved, that would equate to 25 marijuana plants and storage of 1.125 kilograms of marijuana, a fact sheet says.


Copyright © 2008 Grey Bruce

[palmspringsbum]

Medical marijuana grower ready to expand after ruling

Richard Watts and Lindsay Kines
The Victoria Times Colonist
Sunday, January 13, 2008


VICTORIA - A company in Duncan on Vancouver Island is gearing up to supply nearly 300 customers with medical marijuana in the wake of a federal court ruling striking down a key restriction on sales of the drug.

Island Harvest applauded the decision to declare unconstitutional a regulation that had prevented growers from selling marijuana to more than one patient.

Federal Court Judge Barry Strayer said the Health Canada policy violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"We were so happy," said Eric Nash, who owns Island Harvest with wife Wendy Little. "Of course, we're not holding our breath, because we know the government will appeal."

Health Canada has said it's reviewing the court decision, but declined further comment.

Under Canada's medical marijuana regulations, people can apply to be approved as a legal user. Once approved, they can grow it themselves. They can buy it from the federal government, which has contracted a company to grow it in an abandoned mine shaft in northern Manitoba. Or, under the regulation declared unconstitutional, they could designate a person to grow it for them, but that person is limited to growing for that one person only.

Under that regulation, Island Harvest could only sell to two patients - one each for owners Nash and Little.

Nash called the ruling a victory for patients and businesses alike.

"It allows us to supply more patients, to help more people, and basically, as a business, actually have a potential to make some income," he said. "The impact on us is quite profound, because we've had hundreds of patients request our certified organic product over the last couple of years.

"Of course, now we have to scramble to get product available," he said. "It's a big difference supplying hundreds of people than it is two people."

A meeting has been scheduled with federal prosecutors and a B.C. Supreme Court judge next week to discuss the case.

<hr class=postrule><center><small>© Canwest News Service 2008</small></center>

[palmspringsbum]

Emery agrees to 5 years in Canadian prison

Ian Mulgrew
Vancouver Sun


Monday, January 14, 2008



<table class=posttable align=right width=300><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg width=300 src=bin/emery_marc.jpg alt="Marc Emery, facing extradition to the U.S. over money laundering and marijuana seed-selling charges, has made a deal with U.S. prosecutors."></td></tr></table>Marc Emery, Vancouver's self-styled Prince of Pot, has tentatively agreed to a five-year prison term in a plea bargain over U.S. money laundering and marijuana seed-selling charges.

Facing an extradition hearing Jan. 21 and the all-but-certain prospect of delivery to American authorities, Emery has cut a deal with U.S. prosecutors to serve his sentence in Canada.

He also hopes it will save his two co-accused -- Michelle Rainey and Greg Williams, who were his lieutenants for so much of the past decade.

The three were arrested in August 2005 at the request of the United States and charged even though none had ventured south of the border.

Since then, they have been awaiting the extradition hearing.

With the proceedings about to begin, Emery says his lawyer brokered the best deal possible.

If accepted by the courts in both countries, Emery said he will serve the full term and not be eligible for Canada's lenient get-out-of-jail-early rules.

"I'm going to do more time than many violent, repeat offenders," he complained. "There isn't a single victim in my case, no one who can stand up and say, 'I was hurt by Marc Emery.' No one."

He's right. Whatever else you may think of Emery -- and he grates on many people, what is happening here is a travesty of justice. Emery's case mocks our independence as a country.

Prosecutors in Canada have not enforced the law against selling pot seeds and all you need do is walk along Hastings Street between Homer and Cambie for proof.

There are numerous stores selling seeds and products for producing cannabis.

Around the corner, you'll find more seed stores. You'll find the same shops in Toronto and in other major Canadian cities.

The last time Emery was convicted in Canada of selling pot seeds, back in 1998, he was given a $2,000 fine.

Emery has flouted the law for more than a decade and every year he sends his seed catalogue to politicians of every stripe.

He has run in federal, provincial and civic elections promoting his pro-cannabis platform.

He has championed legal marijuana at parliamentary hearings, on national television, at celebrity conferences, in his own magazine, Cannabis Culture, and on his own Internet channel, Pot TV.

Health Canada even recommended medical marijuana patients buy their seeds from Emery.

From 1998 until his arrest, Emery even paid provincial and federal taxes as a "marijuana seed vendor" totalling nearly $600,000.

He is being hounded because of his success.

The political landscape has changed dramatically as a result of Emery's politicking for cannabis.

Emery challenged a law he disagrees with using exactly the non-violent, democratic processes we urge our children to embrace and of which we are so proud.

But along the way he has angered the anti-drug law-enforcement community -- the same gang that insists we must continue an expensive War on Drugs that has failed miserably for more than a quarter century and does more harm than good.

Canadian police grew so frustrated that neither prosecutors nor the courts would lock up Emery and throw away the key, they urged their U.S. counterparts to do the dirty work.

And that's what's wrong.

Emery is being handed over to a foreign government for an activity we are loath to prosecute because we don't think it's a major problem.

His two associates were charged only as a way of blackmailing him into copping a plea.

It's a scandal.

Emery is being made a scapegoat for an anti-cannabis criminal law that is a monumental failure.

In spite of all our pricey efforts during the last 40 years, and all the demonization of marijuana, there is more pot on our streets, more people smoking dope and more damage being done to our communities as a result of the prohibition. There is a better way and every study from the 1970s Le Dain Commission onward has urged change and legalization.

Regardless of what you think of Emery, he should not be facing an unconscionably long jail term for a victimless, non-violent crime that generates a shrug in his own country.

Emery is facing more jail time than corporate criminals who defrauded widows and orphans and longer incarceration than violent offenders who have left their victims dead or in wheelchairs.

And while he has long seemed to court martyrdom, Emery is by no means sanguine about what is happening.

He is angry at local lawyers for failing to come up with a viable defence.

"They had two years and $90,000 and they came up with nothing," he fumed. "John Conroy called me up and said 'take the deal -- Michelle will die in jail. Michelle will die in jail!' What can I say to that?"

Rainey, who has a medical exemption to smoke marijuana, has Crohn's disease. Incarceration in the U.S. would deprive her of her medicine, and she fears it could lead to her death.

"It's an ugly situation but Marc expects miracles," Kirk Tousaw, one of the lawyers involved, told me. "There aren't any here."

He's right.

Our extradition law puts Canadian citizens at the mercy of foreign governments and judges can't do much about it.

Emery is being forced to accept a deal because not only are two of his friends in jeopardy if he doesn't, but also to go south for an unfair trial would mean serving as much as 20 years in prison, perhaps more.

One of his friends, for example, was handed a 30-year sentence for growing 200 plants.

This is wrong.

If Emery has been breaking the law and must be jailed, our justice department should charge him and prosecute him in Canada.

It's time for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson to step in and say, sorry, Uncle Sam, not today -- not ever.

imulgrew@png.canwest.com

<hr class=postrule><center><small>© The Vancouver Sun 2008</small></center>

[palmspringsbum]

The week

<span class=postbigbold>Plenty o’ pot news</span>

By —Jason Youmans
British Columbia News Group
Jan 16 2008


Lawyers for the Vancouver Island Compassion Society (VICS) will be back in court in February to defend the organization’s constitutional right to distribute medical cannabis, despite the death of the judge who was presiding over the now two-year-old trial.

VICS defence lawyer Kirk Tousaw was informed by Madame Justice Marvyn Koenigsberg on Monday the case will continue next month from where it left off in November, before the fatal heart attack of Justice Robert Edwards.

VICS executive director Philippe Lucas says that’s good new for his group, which has spent $200,000 defending Mike Swallow and Mat Beren against charges stemming from a 2004 police raid on a grow operation the group managed at an East Sooke property.

The crown has now dropped charges against Swallow, citing evidence presented at trial that he was only visiting the house when the raid occurred.

Justice Edwards presided over 31 days of B.C. Supreme Court and Lucas says the society feared the trial would be discontinued, but Justice Koenigsberg says audio tapes of the testimony will allow her a proper understanding of the previous proceedings.

In other ganja-related news, marijuana advocate and political enigma Marc Emery has tentatively agreed to a five-year term in a Canadian prison on U.S. charges of money laundering and marijuana seed vending.

Emery, whose Vancouver store was raided by RCMP lapdogs on behalf of U.S. federal authorities in 2005 says he accepts the sentence not only out of a willingness to fight for the cause, but to spare his two co-accused Michelle Rainey and Greg Williams from serving time behind bars as well.

Last, but in now way least, on Thursday last week federal court Justice Barry Strayer struck down Health Canada’s monopoly on the distribution of medical marijuana to patients unable to grow their own.

The feds medical marijuana monopoly has long been criticized by clients for the long waits for prescriptions and the second-tier quality of the product.

Strayer said in his 23-page decision that the bureaucratic hoops required to access Health Canada pot, “caused individuals major difficulty with access,” constituting a significant impediment for those with critical illnesses.

It is expected the Crown will appeal the decision, but in the meantime, licensed growers on Vancouver Island are ready to do Jah’s work for the critically and chronically ill.

E-mail news@mondaymag.com

[palmspringsbum]

New Pot Ruling Not A Concern For Local Police

Craig Huckerby for SooNews.ca
Wednesday, January 16, 2008, 2:25PM
Printed from http://www.soonews.ca/viewarticle.php?id=15581


Last week's decision to challenge the federal government and its controversial medical marijuana program means more growers of the weed will be allowed to administer the drug to approved patients meaning an end to the government's monopoly on pot.

Unless the government plans to appeal the ruling, more choice will be made available allowing for new opportunities for those who now grow pot to sell to registered patients.

Under the old regulations, licensed producers are only allowed to sell to one patient at a time. That regulation violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms according to judge Barry Strayer.

Authorized users who cannot grow their own marijuana because they are too ill, or for other reasons, must then rely on a sole source provider -- either a licensed private producer, if they can find one willing to produce only for them, or the government, which buys the plants from a Saskatchewan-based company.

The recent ruling means more licensed growers could supply the drug to as many patients as possible. Could the new ruling eventually lead to new businesses or grow operations sprouting up across the country?

That doesn't bother Sault Ste. Marie Police Chief, Bob Davies.

"It's not like we're going to see gro-ops everywhere because of the ruling" Davies said.

"The growers are still required to be licensed by the government and the users have to registered" Davies commented.

But is the new ruling just the first step to relaxing marijuana laws, many Canadians believe the laws need to be changed.

"I'm totally opposed to legalizing marijuana, that would create more problems down the road than it solves" Davies said commenting on the drug problems in Sault Ste. Marie.

"We know there's pot on the streets, just as there is other prescription and non-prescription drugs"

Davies said even though he knows pot is being sold on the streets, legalizing it would mean more policing just as with alcohol.

"Right now officers don't have the tools needed to indicate if someone is stoned on pot or other drugs - officers are trained for signs of impairment but it's hard to prove"

Davies is concerned that if pot is legalized it will mean more people driving while under the influence.

The ruling, the latest in a string of court cases, will essentially mean more choice for approved medical marijuana users and should provide easier access for them to the drug.

Some doctors are now warming up to the idea that marijuana may not be as harmful as some might think.

A study for Health Canada says doctors support the use of cannabis when all other conventional treatments have failed. The study is based on the testimonials of 30 Canadian doctors. Recent studies indicate that the key ingredient in pot could actually kill cancer cells. More tests are currently being conducted.

[palmspringsbum]

Canada shirks its duty in Prince of Pot case

Vancouver Sun

Wednesday, January 16, 2008


If all goes as planned, Marc Emery will soon begin serving a five-year prison sentence in Canada, thanks to a deal with United States prosecutors on charges of selling marijuana seeds and money laundering.

If the deal goes through, Emery will avoid being extradited to the U.S. to face trial there, where he would face a minimum 10-year sentence, and a maximum of life in prison if convicted.

The deal seems a good one for Vancouver's self-styled Prince of Pot. Yet it shouldn't have been necessary, since Emery should never have faced extradition to the U.S.

The Treaty on Extradition Between Canada and the United States and Canada's Extradition Act require that two conditions be met before people in Canada can be sent to the U.S.

First, the offence with which they are charged in the U.S. must also be an offence in Canada, and second, they must not have been charged in Canada with the offence.

In Emery's case, the first condition appears to be met: Under the Criminal Code, selling marijuana seeds (and money laundering) are offences. This was affirmed by the B.C. Court of Appeal in R. v. Hunter in 2000. In fact, Emery himself was convicted of selling seeds in 1998.

Yet appearances can be deceiving. Since his conviction in 1998, Emery has brazenly continued selling seeds, yet police have done nothing about it. Nor have they tried to stop other seed dealers.

The police can hardly be blamed for their inaction, though, since the Canadian government has signalled that it doesn't consider Emery's actions illegal. After all, the feds were directing medical marijuana users to Emery's website until 2003.

Regardless of what the courts or the Criminal Code say, then, the government has de facto legalized the sale of marijuana seeds, and the first condition for extradition has not been met.

However, if we ignore the government's behaviour and rely on the courts and the Criminal Code, then the first condition has been met. We must then consider the second, which has also been met, since Emery has not been charged in Canada. But this raises the question: Why not?

Had he been charged, the second condition would not have been met, and he would not have faced extradition. Hence the reason Emery is facing a five-year prison sentence -- with no parole eligibility, which makes it the equivalent of a 15-year sentence -- is not because the U.S. is enforcing the law, but because Canada refuses to.

This is an unacceptable situation. It's time for Canadian authorities to accept their responsibility by either enforcing the laws on the books or removing them altogether.

<hr class=postrule><center><small>© The Vancouver Sun 2008</small></center>

[palmspringsbum]

This is Your Law On Drugs


Eye Weekly
BY Saada Branker January 16, 2008 13:01

In presenting the government’s anti-drug plan in October, Prime Minister Stephen Harper never called it a “War on Drugs.” But he talked tough about “breaking Canada’s drug habit,” and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson punctuated that sentiment by proposing a bill aimed at invoking mandatory jail sentences for drug offenders. Immediately, critics sounded off on what they saw as a host of inherent flaws in the government’s whole approach to illicit drugs. One common strain of criticism pointed out that this is a familiar strategy once embraced by American policy-makers.

Ironically, with drug-related crime still rampant and overcrowding in prisons in some states, mandatory minimum sentencing for drug crimes is currently under review in the US. Yet, despite the failures of Washington’s drug policy, the Tories are determined that the American-styled law-and-order approach to drugs will work in Canada.

To help rid the country of “its complacent attitude toward illicit drugs,” the Conservatives committed $63.8 million over two years to fund more enforcement, prevention and treatment programs, conspicuously dropping an important component known as harm reduction in the process. That’s a problem, say opponents of the government. The public-health alternatives derived from harm reduction, they say, would yield positive, long-term results for drug users — addicts who often deal drugs to support their dependency. Some of the different approaches being encouraged include treating drug use and abuse primarily as public health issues and not criminal ones; legalizing marijuana in order to emasculate a potent black market built on its illegal trade; and setting up harm-reduction initiatives similar to those that already exist for tobacco and alcohol. But if any of these alternatives are worth exploring, the Conservatives don’t appear keen on doing it.

The bill in question proposes amending the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) so that a range of minimum penalties for drug offences will give judges rigid sentencing guidelines. (Retired Quebec judge John Gomery likened the legislation to “a slap in the face” for the judiciary.) If the bill passes, a one-year mandatory prison sentence will be imposed for drug-related crimes involving a weapon or violence; a two-year penalty will be required for dealing drugs like cocaine, heroin and meth to youth, or dealing near areas frequented by children; and running a marijuana grow-op of at least 500 plants will lead to a mandatory minimum of two years. The maximum penalty for cannabis production would increase from seven to 14 years. Certain offenders who complete a Drug Treatment Court program will be exempted from facing mandatory prison time.

The new legislation is not going over well with Libby Davies, the NDP Deputy Leader and spokesperson on drug policy. She suggests the Conservatives’ focus on enforcement (“scare tactics”) at the expense of proper education and harm reduction is “very much ideologically driven.”

“I think they’re trying to fool people. That somehow getting tough on crime and taking this kind of approach is going to make communities safer,” Davies says. She thinks the opposite will happen. “Mr. Harper is clearly wanting to adopt the US model of a war on drugs.”

And what a model it is, say the critics. Twenty-two years ago, the US Congress enacted severe mandatory minimum penalties for crack-related offences. What resulted was unrelenting organized crime, increasing incarceration of so-called lower-level drug offenders and, ultimately, a disproportionate number of poor people, mainly African-Americans, being given unduly harsh sentences. Last month, the US Supreme Court ruled in favour of a return to more individualized sentences in drug cases, a retreat from the 1986 national guidelines. The following day, the American Sentencing Commission voted unanimously to apply this leniency retroactively for almost 20,000 prisoners serving time on crack-related charges.

No one at the offices of the Health Minister Tony Clement or the Minister of Justice responded to requests for a telephone interview, but media officials provided written statements. Geneviève Breton, director of communications for the justice minister’s office, says the government’s approach is designed to target serious drug offenders. “The proposed set of mandatory minimum penalties simply does not target minor drug offenders,” writes Breton. “Only those drug traffickers who have aggravating factors in their cases, such as using violence or selling drugs near schools, will be eligible to receive the mandatory minimum sentence.”

Like Davies, the executive director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network believes the Conservatives’ approach fails to recognize that many drug offenders resort to crime to support their habit. Richard Elliott says the root problem is one of addiction and the consequences of a market that supplies that addiction. “It’s a health issue, and we keep throwing all these criminal law provisions at it, thinking this is somehow going to address that,” says Elliott. His organization opposes mandatory minimum sentencing, and warns of overcrowding prisons with non-violent drug offenders who are also addicts. Such a move, it says, will worsen a public-health problem by increasing the risks of HIV and Hepatitis C transmissions. “We’re not making a dent in drug markets: in fact, the sale and consumption of illegal drugs are steadily increasing. We are compounding the problems here and we’re impeding health services for people that are much more likely to have an impact.”

Because the federal government excludes harm reduction — a component of the original national drug strategy — from its anti-drug plan, the status of certain health services remains in limbo. Last month Health Canada refused to grant Insite, the country’s lone supervised-injection site, its requested three-year renewal, opting instead on a six-month extension. In a September 2007 press release, Tony Clement said that “the best form of harm reduction is to help addicts break the cycle of dependency.” At a Canadian Medical Association meeting the health minister was quoted as saying, “Harm reduction, in a sense, takes many forms. To me, prevention is harm reduction. Treatment is harm reduction. Enforcement is harm reduction.”

Not so, said over 130 physicians and scientists who signed a petition the next day. It denounced the federal government for its “potentially deadly” misinformation on harm reduction programs. According to a report presented by a Toronto ad hoc committee for the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, “Harm reduction is any policy or program designed to reduce drug-related harm without requiring the cessation of drug use.”

Toronto criminal lawyer and Osgoode Law professor Alan Young says drug dependency is a complicated issue. “You can’t really use law to change the situation. People will always use drugs,” he says. “So then the question becomes, what’s the most responsive governmental approach to a situation that most people handle responsibly and some people destroy their lives with?”

Young, who for years has advocated the legalization of marijuana, says by resorting to criminal prohibition, governments create a black market. “When you take a criminal approach to the drug issue, you bring in a whole other Pandora’s box of more serious crimes, and then the politicians blame the drugs, when in reality, it’s their approach that is creating violence within the drug trade.”

Davies says there is a role in a national drug strategy for enforcement, but “not to the obliteration of other initiatives like harm reduction.” Bill C-26 still has to pass second reading in the House of Commons and then be debated by a parliamentary committee before the Senate looks at it.

Meanwhile, Davies pledges to keep up the campaign to save Insite, and to push for harm reduction programs throughout Canada.

“Whether it’s alcohol, tobacco or substances that are illegal, the most important thing we can do for people is provide really solid education that is realistically frank,” says Davies. “So when people do face substance-abuse issues like addiction or dependency, they actually receive medical help in a way that’s accessible and focused on the user.”

[palmspringsbum]

Emery more principled than those who oppose him

<span class=postbigbold>Prince of Pot has second thoughts about plea bargain,
likely won't abandon co-accused friends</span>

Ian Mulgrew
Vancouver Sun
Monday, January 21, 2008


Marc Emery, Vancouver's Prince of Pot, triggered headlines around the globe by revealing his tentative five-year plea bargain with the U.S. over money laundering and drug charges.

Still, his wife Jodie urged everyone to remember that although he has tentatively agreed to the deal proposed by the U.S., it is by no means finalized.

The deal had not been signed by both countries, Emery and the courts. And the U.S. has not yet agreed to drop the charges against Michelle Rainey and Greg Williams, two of Emery's friends who are co-accused. He has made their freedom a condition of his "guilty" plea.

Emery could also change his mind before today's extradition hearing in B.C. Supreme Court -- throw caution to the wind and battle tooth-and-nail against the U.S. request, which is a product of Emery's mail-order seed-sale business in the U.S.

I doubt it.

Emery is a principled man -- far more so than those who disagree with him.

If he can save his friends, he will. If not, well....

I think what is happening is an outrage.

Emery is being handed over to the Americans for selling seeds at a time when the marijuana law in Canada is problematic at best.

In Ontario, judges have found the failure of the government to provide marijuana to the sick invalidates the present criminal law against at least possession.

It's a conclusion that flows directly from previous Supreme Court of Canada decisions.

If sick and suffering Canadians are prevented from getting the safe and effective medicine they need -- marijuana -- by a criminal law, that statute is unconstitutional.

In Victoria, a B.C. Supreme Court trial and in Sechelt, a Provincial Court trial are under way involving precisely this question.

"The government can only make simple possession, and possibly cultivation and trafficking, illegal if it has a constitutional medical marijuana program [that works]," said Kirk Tousaw, a lawyer involved in both cases as well as Emery's.

"It may well be that, as in 2003, marijuana possession is legal in Canada. Of course that doesn't mean that police will stop enforcing the possession law right away, or that the Crown will stop prosecuting, so people would do well to be cautious in their reaction. That said, it is an exciting time for marijuana law reform in Canada."

Unless you're Marc Emery.

I can't imagine what he's feeling as the effects of his 14-year-long crusade bears fruit and he faces a medieval jail sentence.

Some of the discourse around his predicament must rile, if for no other reason than its surreal quality.

Consider, for instance, Marlene Jennings, Liberal justice critic, fuming with outrage:

"You can't blame him [for trying to cut a deal] when he's up against the Conservative government that's basically telling the states, 'Do what you want, we're not going to fight it. We're not going to prosecute, we're not going to bring criminal charges, but we'll let you do it. We'll let you do the dirty work for us. And then we'll stand by with our arms crossed.'"

Too bad it was the previous Liberal administration of ex-prime minister Paul Martin back in 2005 that set this injustice in motion.

Former Liberal justice minister Irwin Cotler is the man who gave the okay for these proceedings.

Damn him, Jennings.

The Conservatives have the power to step in and halt this travesty -- but let's not blame them for creating it.

If they had any sense, they'd step up to the plate.

Also, although Emery's deal is aimed at having him serve his time in Canada, any agreement requires him to travel to America for judicial processing. He will serve roughly between six and 10 months in a U.S. jail before being returned to Canada.

He shouldn't do a day down there, in my opinion. He shouldn't do a day, period.

<hr class=postrule><center><small>imulgrew@png.canwest.com
© The Vancouver Sun 2008</small></center>

[palmspringsbum]

Marijuana advocate's court appearance draws pot-smoking protesters

The Canadian Press
January 22, 2008

VANCOUVER - The skunky smell of marijuana wafted into the main lobby of the provincial court Tuesday as British Columbia's self-proclaimed "prince of pot" attended a court hearing on his plea bargain with the United States.

Marc Emery showed up with an entourage of marijuana advocates, some carrying placards and others wearing capes proclaiming their support for the well-known marijuana crusader.

But his court appearance was delayed for a few weeks while lawyers on both sides of the Canada, U.S. border negotiate a plea bargain over Emery's sale of marijuana seeds via the Internet.

The plea agreement would see Emery spend six to nine months in a U.S. jail. The remainder of the 10-year sentence would be served in a Canadian prison.

"I'm confident the United States Justice Department will see the good in this deal and would want to avoid a very - I think-prickly and unpopular prosecution," Emery told reporters following the brief appearance.

Despite the prospect of spending years in prison, the 50-year-old crusader said he wouldn't change a thing.

"I'm proud of what I did. I won't be making any apologies or any kind of repentance or contrition and the Unites States Justice Department is aware of that," he said. "I consider what I've done to be a great patriot's act."

Emery has flouted Canadian marijuana laws for decades and even went on a cross-Canada tour, smoking cartoon-sized joints in front of city police departments.

He spent two months in a Saskatoon jail after one of his pro-pot protests.

American authorities started the extradition process three years ago when a U.S. federal grand jury indicted Emery on conspiracy to distribute marijuana seeds into the U.S. over the Internet.

His acceptance of the prison term comes in exchange for no jail time for his two co-accused Greg Williams and Michelle Rainey.

"I'm not particularly afraid of a hearing or five years in jail if that's the price I have to pay to get my co-accused out of jail," Emery said.

Rainey doesn't want to see any of them go to prison.

"I don't feel it's fair that Marc would have to sacrifice himself for us in any way whatsoever," she said.

Rainey said prosecuting them in the U.S. for what is "a victimless crime," is a sovereignty issue.

"We need to stand up for our rights in this country as Canadians," she said.

Rainey has Crohn's disease and has a legal exemption to use marijuana for medical purposes.

She said she certainly wouldn't be allowed to use her medicine in a U.S. prison.

"I would die in a U.S. prison," she said outside the court. "I have used cannabis now for the past 12 years. I don't use any pharmaceuticals and it saved my life."

The case is to return to court Feb. 6.

"The anticipation and hope is no hearing is going to be required," Emery's lawyer, Ian Donaldson, told B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Patrick Dohm.

[palmspringsbum]

Marijuana club will help chronically ill

<span class=postbigbold>Activist wants to give pot to those who can use it for pain control</span>

Paul Walton
The Daily News
Monday, January 28, 2008


Nanaimo residents with chronic illnesses may get their own medical marijuana compassion club.

Activist James Younger said he hopes to have the Mid-Island Compassion Society operating by as soon as Thursday.

"I'd like to provide medical marijuana to people in need of it," said Younger.

He has issued a statement claiming that cannabis is medicine, and part of the mandate is to ensure "strict safeguards against abuse."

Younger said he has used pot for his work-related pain and assisted in growing it for a quadriplegic man in his home.

Younger said the police did raid the man's residence, but later returned the equipment they seized.

He is thinking of people with AIDS, hepatitis, ALS, cancer and various other chronic conditions.

Younger said he has received good response thus far, and for the past several months has been consulting with compassion clubs in Vancouver and Victoria.

"I'm ready to go, I have a membership of three," he said. "I've had people offer me computers and telephone lines and others who've offered me an organic source (for marijuana).

The cost to join will be between $5 and $50, depending on what a person can afford, and though he has been looking for a storefront, Younger said a bicycle will likely be the centre of his business to deliver to customers.

"I was hoping to find a storefront, but I was told to use a bicycle, that way they don't impound your vehicle," he said.

Younger said he wants to do everything up front, and today is seeking to speak with Mayor Gary Korpan and the RCMP. Korpan said he will listen to Younger, but questioned the idea of medical marijuana.

"I'm not a doctor but it seems to me there are more than enough medicines out there that we don't need to be breaking more laws," said Korpan.

Younger maintains that people in Nanaimo who require medical marijuana don't have adequate access to it. The compassion club in Victoria, he said, will begin referring Nanaimo people to him if in several months his operation appears to be a success. No one, said Younger, will be able to join unless they have an authorization from a doctor.

But first he his seeking a declaration of non-profit status, and he will then seek to work with the city.

"I'm telling the city anyway, I want to open and accountable."

<hr class=postrule><center><small>PWalton@nanaimodailynews.com
250-729-4230
© The Daily News (Nanaimo) 2008</small></center>

[palmspringsbum]

Reefer Madness

Date 2008/1/28 0:10:00

westcoaster.ca
By Alex Nikolic, Columnist

It has nothing to do with getting high. In reality, Canada’s drug policy is written in Washington and has everything to do with socially conservative political manipulation, and money.

It is little more than controlling, intimidating and marginalizing otherwise respectable and law-abiding citizens and infringing on the basic freedoms and rights of the general population.

Until 1906, marijuana and hemp was cultivated for the production of clothing, sails, ropes and medicine.

There was nothing illegal about it, but it did cut into the profits of rich white people.

William Randolph Hearst had significant interests in the timber industry, which manufactured newsprint for his many newspapers, something that hemp had been used for until then.

DuPont had also patented a process that converted fossil fuels into plastics, something that hemp-seed oil had been used for until then.

After losing nearly a million acres of prime timberland to Pancho Villa, Hearst engaged in a campaign that portrayed Mexican immigrants as violent, lazy, degenerate, job-stealing pot smokers.

The money behind DuPont, Andrew Mellon, was also Herbert Hoover’s Treasury Secretary. He appointed the US’s first Drug Czar, Harry Anslinger who proceeded to demonize marijuana by employing such rhetoric as "Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men … Marijuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing ... the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races …This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes."

Not much has changed.

Drug laws based on this fear-mongering propaganda and racist yellow-journalism are still enforced today. Instead of addressing the world’s largest demand for narcotics in its own backyard, the US amerrogantly sends the DEA into developing countries to eradicate the coca crops of Bolivia and opium fields of Thailand and Afghanistan, destroying the livelihoods of farmers who have grown these crops for centuries longer than the US has existed.

Of course, Canada’s current batch of “leaders” continues to do the bidding of American petrochemical companies and backward-thinking scaredy-cats that have come up with their own rationalized justifications.

Let’s explore two of these myths: that marijuana is a “gateway drug” for more destructive substance abuse, and that criminals use the profits from pot sales for purchasing guns and cocaine.

It would be difficult to find a politician insensitive enough to deny the use of medicinal marijuana to cancer-patients undergoing chemotherapy. If marijuana is a “gateway drug,” why aren’t these people getting hooked on heroin and crack? If they aren’t jumping through the “gateway,” why would anyone else?

Undeniably, criminals are buying guns and cocaine with the profits from marijuana sales. Pot is as guaranteed a commodity market as anyone could find. It’s the same thing Prohibition did for Capone and his friends. However, if pot were controlled in the same way as alcohol and tobacco, the government would be making the profits and the criminals would lose their most lucrative means to carry out real crimes. Marijuana laws fuel organized crime.

In 2003, Nanaimo-Alberni MP James Lunney introduced Bill C-420 that would “place natural health products under a food directorate, rather than as a subclass of drugs.” He also recently commented that “our government has no intention to decriminalize marijuana”

The irony extends beyond the name of the bill. Last I heard cannabis and hemp could be grown naturally. And, if marijuana isn’t a health product, why does Health Canada grant access to marijuana for medical use? It seems Mr. Lunney is advocating declassifying pot as a drug. Perhaps he is more progressive than I may have imagined, despite the Conservatives dropping the term from their name.

Nonetheless, here we are today, bowing to the Bush administration by extraditing Marc Emery to be prosecuted under the US’s archaic and draconian laws. At the same time, we won’t kick up too much of a fuss about the US executing one of our own citizens. Meanwhile, handguns remain legal in Canada. Where, oh where, are our priorities and sovereignty?

If we were to decriminalize pot and treat it the way we do alcohol and tobacco, imagine the money taxpayers would save by collecting the taxes and diverting resources from law enforcement and correctional facilities towards truly pressing matters such as health care and education.

What nonsense to criminalize something that God has seen fit to plant on His green earth! It is the chemicals used to process opium into heroin, or coca into cocaine, that should be illegal rather than naturally occurring plants. I wonder what DuPont would say about that. Because it’s all about money and has nothing to do with getting high.

[palmspringsbum]

REDBRIDGE: IDS backs crackdown on cannabis

The Guardian
By Charlie Campbell
January 28, 2008

<table class=posttable align=right width=300><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg width=300 src=bin/smith_duncan.jpg></td></tr><tr><td class=postcell><span class=postbold>Woodford Green MP Iain Duncan Smith</span></td></tr></table>WOODFORD Green MP Iain Duncan Smith has backed calls for tougher laws regarding cannabis.

Revelations that the number of adults being treated for cannabis use has risen by 50 per cent nationally since the drug was downgraded from Class B to Class C, have led to renewed calls for it to return to the higher classification.

Medical journal The Lancet says that one in seven cases of schizophrenia and other life-shattering mental illnesses are due to cannabis.

And smoking dope accounts for 75 per cent of children who require treatment for drug use.

As chairman of the Conservative Party's Social Justice Policy Group, Mr Duncan Smith has published a report outlining a comprehensive approach to treating drug and alcohol abuse in the United Kingdom.

In volume four of Breakthrough Britain', the MP also says we should look to Europe for more efficient ways of treating drug addiction.

advertisementHe said: "We recommended regrading it to Class B and I'm very pleased that the Government is thinking of taking on our policies.

"But reclassifying cannabis is not enough by itself, as it is about getting treatment and counselling for everybody convicted for a drugs offence, like in Sweden and Holland.

"There everyone convicted of a drugs offence is sent to therapy to try to get them off drugs. That's why Holland has a third of the drug addicts we do.

"All we do is park people on methadone and other replacement drugs. It's not enough and we need to do much more."

Mr Duncan Smith also rejects calls for cannabis to be available on prescription, claiming there is no medical research to prove that it works and it leaves a lot of unanswered questions.

8:46am Monday 28th January 2008

[palmspringsbum]

Protester decries plans for medical marijuana outlet


Derek Spalding
The Nanaimo Daily News


Thursday, January 31, 2008


Richard Pollack does not want James Younger supplying marijuana to Nanaimo's chronically ill.

Pollack spent several days picketing outside Younger's Victoria Street home, questioning Younger's motive for providing people with medicinal marijuana.

Younger said the Mid-Island Compassion Society will be up and running today and he has plans to expand the illegal business so that he can help anyone living in chronic pain.

As of today, he has three customers, but he plans to ride his bike for the next few months delivering pot to people who suffer from AIDS, hepatitis, ALS, cancer and various other chronic conditions.

Pollack called the activist a hypocrite for campaigning to rid the neighbourhood of unwanted activity, only to start an illegal operation. Admittedly, Younger said his new project will take great effort and rely heavily on co-operation from the city and police.

Not all neighbours oppose Younger. One pedestrian hollered at Pollack from the street corner, telling him to spend his time drawing attention to some of the "crack" houses, instead of medicinal pot operations.

"If people want to call me a hypocrite, that's their prerogative," Younger said on Wednesday evening. "I'm doing this because I want to help those in pain."

Pollack received honks from five motorists within a 20-minute period on Wednesday afternoon, while standing outside Younger's home. He supports medicinal marijuana use, but does not want Younger doing it illegally.

"He spent months campaigning to get rid of the needle exchange in this neighbourhood, and the prostitutes, and now he wants to start (delivering pot to people). I smell a hypocrite," Pollack said at the end of his three-hour shift.

Younger dismissed Pollack and any other critics and now prepares for the difficult task of keeping his operation open. He will deliver pot by bike before opening a storefront, he said, to reduce police hassles.

Experts at the B.C. Compassion Club in Vancouver understand how difficult the startup can be. Spokeswoman Nicole Marcia said "it's a lot to take on . . . because you're risking arrest."

"What we are doing here is not legal," she insisted. "We're tolerated by police and by the city. We're a not-for-profit organization, so police leave us alone."

Younger understands that police will likely charge him for possession or trafficking, but he is not worried, given his research on convictions.

"All charges have been dropped or overturned," he said.

DSpalding@nanaimodailynews.com

250-729-4231

[palmspringsbum]

Ottawa wants appeal of medical marijuana ruling allowing more suppliers


February 7, 2008
The Canadian Press

TORONTO - Ottawa is asking for an appeal of a Federal Court decision that struck down a key restriction in the government's controversial medical marijuana program.

The Jan. 10 decision allowed growers to supply medical marijuana to more than one patient, effectively loosening the government's tight grip on accessing the drug.

The court erred in concluding that a restriction preventing growers from supplying the drug to one person is unconstitutional, the Department of Justice said in court documents filed Jan. 31.

Justice Barry Strayer also erred in concluding that the provision was forcing medical users to obtain the drug on the black market, the documents state.

Prior to the January ruling, medical users could grow their own pot, but growers like Carasel Harvest Supply Corp. couldn't supply the drug to more than one user at a time.

The federal government is seeking that the Jan. 10 judgment be set aside and that it be awarded legal costs.

Lawyers representing medical users, who considered the Jan. 10 decision a victory, also filed for a cross-appeal of the ruling.

They say the court should be monitoring the federal government to ensure it's not unfairly restricting access to the drug by denying licences to growers who want to produce medical pot for a number of users.

Strayer erred in not requiring the court to "retain ongoing supervisory jurisdiction" over Health Canada or order the government to periodically report back to the court on its progress, according to a court document filed Tuesday by Toronto lawyer Ron Marzel.

"The record before the court contained ample evidence that the government of Canada, the minister of health and Health Canada have, since 1999, delayed and frustrated reasonable access to medical cannabis," the document states.

Lawyers for medical users had argued that the restriction preventing growers from producing medical pot for more than one person at a time effectively established Health Canada as the country's sole legal provider.

They said the restriction was unfair and prevented seriously ill Canadians from obtaining the drug they need to treat their debilitating illnesses.

The provision had been struck down by the courts before, but was reinstated by the government which contracted Prairie Plant Systems Inc. in Flin Flon, Man., to grow the drug for patients.

Previous governments have been uncomfortable with their role as a cannabis supplier. Former Liberal health minister Anne McLellan, an unabashed opponent of the program, was reluctant to provide the drug to patients.

Lawyers representing medical users have accused Ottawa of trying to buy time until pharmaceutical companies come up with marijuana products, so it can wash its hands of the program.

The case challenging the restriction began in 2004 and was heard before the Federal Court in December.

No date has been set for the court to hear the appeal and cross-appeal.

<center><small>Hosted by Copyright © 2008 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.</small></center>

[palmspringsbum]

Liberal leader Dion indicates Vancouver safe injection site is OK

(BC News) Friday, 08 February 2008, 15:42 PST
Greg Joyce, THE CANADIAN PRESS

VANCOUVER - The Liberal party has no intention of advocating the legalization of cannabis but leader Stephane Dion made it clear Friday that under a Liberal government, other Canadian cities could see safe injection sites like the one in Vancouver.

Dion, whose party could be embroiled in an election campaign this spring, took about 20 questions at a "town hall meeting" at the University of British Columbia.

The questions were wide-ranging and included the Liberal party's position on Afghanistan, the economy, climate change - and marijuana.

"It's not something we will campaign on in the next election," Dion said candidly. "But we need to have an approach about drugs that is more effective than the one the government has to date."

Without being asked about it, he told the crowd of about 150 students that Canada's only safe injection site - known as Insite and situated in the Downtown Eastside - "is something in which we believe.

"I think the current government has an ideological approach about that," Dion told the gathering that was co-ordinated by the Young Liberals of UBC.

"If the science is telling you that an initiative like that is saving lives, we need to continue it."

The Harper government has said that the city's safe injection site can remain open until June.

Health Canada announced in October it would extend the exemption from Canada's drug laws that allows Insite to operate. The exemption was set to run out at the end of the year.

The site provides a place for addicts to safely inject themselves with their own heroin under the supervision of medical staff.

A spokeswoman for Health Canada said the exemption will allow further research.

Dion added that a Liberal government would investigate if there are other communities in Canada "willing to address the problem this way."

Another student suggested that Canada often kowtows to the U.S. on many issues and wanted to know how Dion would deal with the U.S. administration.

"If you get into power, how are you going to handle the way Canada kind of lies down when they want us to do something but then when we want them to do something they kind of slough us off, right?" the student asked.

"For us Canadians, the United States is a friend," said Dion.

"It is an ally but it is not a model," he said to loud applause. "This difference between a friend and a model is not well understood by the current prime minister and it will be by me."

He also told the students that Canada must have its "economic sovereignty protected."

But as a trading nation with the U.S., he said Canada's "balance of trade is very advantageous for Canada.

"Our trade with the U.S. must be effective but it must be open as well because we are making a lot of money trading with them.

[palmspringsbum]

He’s "a healer, not a dealer’

<span class=postbigbold>Man who claims his hemp oil cures cancer says he’s leaving Canada after fine for trafficking in medical pot</span>

The Chronicle Herald
By TOM McCOAG Amherst Bureau
Sat. Feb 9 - 5:11 AM

AMHERST — A Maccan-area man who insists he has found the cure for cancer says he is leaving Canada for an unnamed country where he can live without fear of persecution or prosecution for taking and producing medicinal marijuana.

"I can’t live in a country where I and others are labelled as criminals because of our medical need for this (marijuana) medication," Ricky Logan Simpson, 58, said Friday. "I’ve decided that after five years of trying to bring my medicine to the people, I don’t like the way this country is run. It seems that the health and welfare of the people means nothing to the (politicians) in Ottawa."

Mr. Simpson made the comments outside Nova Scotia Supreme Court moments after Justice Felix Cacchione fined him $2,000 and sentenced him to one day in jail, considered served by his court appearance, for producing marijuana and possessing less than three kilograms of tetrahydrocannabinol for the purpose of trafficking. Tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, is the main active ingredient in marijuana.

A charge of possessing less than 30 grams of marijuana was stayed.

Mr. Simpson was given six months to pay the fine.

A crowd of about 30 supporters in the courtroom applauded loudly when the sentence was handed down. As sheriff’s deputies tried to quiet them, one man yelled, "Rick Simpson is a healer, not a dealer."

Outside the courtroom, Chummy Anthony, president of the Nova Scotia Marijuana Party, held a sign bearing similar wording. He was upset that Mr. Simpson wasn’t simply given a discharge. He was yelling at the top of his lungs that "Mr. Simpson was just like Jesus Christ, because just like Jesus Christ, he was being prosecuted and persecuted for helping sick people."

A woman stood beside him holding up a DVD titled The Run from the Cure: The Rick Simpson Story. The DVD details Mr. Simpson’s court battles and his efforts — including running in the last federal election — to have federal medical marijuana laws changed. Mr. Simpson was seen distributing the DVD to people before his sentencing.

Afterward, Mr. Simpson hugged and shook hands with supporters as he left the courtroom a free man. One man pledged that Mr. Simpson will not have to pay the fine because "all the people he’s helped will chip in money to make sure it’s paid."

A Supreme Court jury found Mr. Simpson guilty in September after a five-day trial. The charges stemmed from an RCMP raid on his Little Forks Road property on Aug. 3, 2005, that netted 1,190 marijuana plants.

Mr. Simpson admitted at trial to growing marijuana on his property and using it to create a hemp oil that he claims cures everything from cankers to cancer. He distributed the hemp oil free to about 300 patients.

Even after the trial ended with a guilty verdict, Mr. Simpson pledged to continue making and distributing the hemp oil.

It was his contempt for the law, and the size of the marijuana seizure — described as one of the biggest in the province — that led Crown attorney Monica MacQueen to recommend a two-year jail sentence for Mr. Simpson. Defence lawyer Duncan Beveridge suggested an unconditional discharge, saying his client did not profit from his marijuana operation.

Justice Cacchione called the trial the most unique drug case he has ever presided over. He said he’d never heard of a drug trafficker telling police of his plans, or of a dealer who didn’t earn a profit from his trafficking.

"Mr. Simpson’s actions were entirely altruistic," the judge said. "There was nothing insidious in what Mr. Simpson did."

He acted out of a strongly held belief in the medicinal value of marijuana and a steadfast conviction that the hemp oil he made was helping people alleviate their suffering from a variety of ailments that prescription drugs were having little impact upon, the judge said.

But he said he couldn’t grant a discharge because Mr. Simpson chose to grow marijuana and distribute his hemp oil illegally instead of participating in the federal government’s medical marijuana program.

Ms. MacQueen said it was too early to say if the Crown will appeal.

Mr. Simpson’s legal woes are not over. He is to appear in Amherst provincial court on Feb. 28 to face another trafficking charge that Amherst police laid in November.

( tmccoag@herald.ca)

[palmspringsbum]

Pot smoker fights bar ban

The Missauga News
2008-02-11 08:45:42.000

A man who uses "medical marijuana" to deal with pain from a neck injury he suffered in Mississauga nearly two decades ago is appealing to the Ontario Human Rights Commission for the right to smoke up in front of a Burlington sports bar he frequents.

Steve Gibson thinks the owner of the bar should let him smoke joints in the same spot outside the business where tobacco users spark up.

Gibson, 42, said he has suffered debilitating pain in his neck for 19 years. In 1989, he was hit on the head by a box of heavy vinyl siding while working at his job in Mississauga. He damaged two vertebrae and could not work for a long time.

"I have a spinal cord injury. It creates severe pain and muscle spasms. I've seen neurosurgeons but they haven't been able to help," said Gibson. But marijuana eases the pain, said the Burlington resident, who received a medical certificate from the federal government four years ago allowing him to smoke pot for medicinal reasons.

Ted Kindos, the owner of Gator Ted's Tap & Grill, simply wants Gibson not to smoke his pot close to the front doors of his Guelph Line restaurant.

"This issue isn't about Gibson any longer," said Kindos. "The (possible) precedent (ruling) is they are going to be able to smoke this stuff anywhere they want — inside or outside (public places)."

Kindos said the legal bills he faces may put him on the brink of bankruptcy.

"I was trying to be a nice guy and went outside (the bar) to smoke but it wasn't good enough for him," Gibson said.

"He wants me outside his bar by 100 feet. I just want to be treated like every other (tobacco) smoker," whom he says are often within 10 feet of the bar's front doors.

"They're out there killing themselves (with tobacco cigarettes) and I'm taking medicine," added Gibson. If I have to be 100 feet away from everybody else's property, I'd be pretty much grounded to my house."

The two men are locked in a battle that has been before the Ontario Human Rights Commission for about two and a half years. The case has seen three mediation sessions without reaching an agreement and has now been sent for eight days of hearings that begin May 12.

jstewart@mississauga.net

[palmspringsbum]

Medical marijuana advocates cry foul

<span class=postbigbold>Lawyer cites 'cycle of ignorance'</span>

Shannon Kari, National Post
Published: Monday, February 11, 2008

<table class=posttable width=300 align=right><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg width=300 src=bin/canada_cannabis-raid.jpg></td></tr><tr><td class=postcell><span class=postbold>An RCMP officer removes several large marijuana plants during a raid on a home in Calgary. The push to legalize possession of marijuana has lost momentum in Ottawa and abroad recently.</td></tr></table>It was more than 35 years ago that the LeDain Commission recommended marijuana be decriminalized in Canada.

Attempts to suppress or even control its use were failing, possession laws were enforced on a "selective and discriminatory" basis and its prohibited status invited "exploitation" by criminal elements, concluded the Royal Commission in 1972.

It suggested the government regulate cannabis in the same way as alcohol, which resulted in proposed legislation to decriminalize possession. The bill died on the order paper when a federal election was called in 1974, in the same way that a similar bill died 30 years later.

Today, discussion about reforming the country's marijuana laws is not on the political landscape. If anything, the country is moving in the opposite direction.

The government of Stephen Harper has ruled out any changes to the law, and during a visit to marijuana-friendly Vancouver last week, Liberal leader Stephane Dion said his party is not going to advocate for the end of criminal sanctions for possession.

Another sign that the marijuana lobby has lost political momentum is the recent announcement by Marc Emery that he is giving up his extradition fight. The self-professed "Prince of Pot" is negotiating a plea bargain with U.S. authorities to try to reduce a prison sentence for selling marijuana seeds over the Internet.

As well, almost 45,000 criminal charges for simple possession continue to be laid each year, up nearly 20% from a decade ago.

Even the 2,200 people in Canada authorized to possess marijuana for medical reasons have not been able to convince Health Canada to ease restrictions to make it easier to access a legal supply of what they consider to be their medicine.

Late last month, the federal government appealed a federal court ruling that found medical marijuana regulations to be unconstitutional for the third time in eight years.

"There is a cycle of ignorance that seems impossible to transcend" in any discussion about marijuana, suggested Alan Young, a professor at Osgoode Hall law school in Toronto, who has represented chronically ill people in a number of medicalmarijuana court challenges. "We are either running on the spot or moving backwards," he said.

Medical-marijuana users have long complained about the bureaucratic obstacles in dealing with Health Canada when it involves licences for legal possession or production of the drug.

Its actions have also repeatedly been criticized by the courts. Part of the medical-marijuana regulations were struck down in 2003 by the Ontario Court of Appeal because there was not a sufficient legal supply of the drug and designated producers were permitted to grow for only one person with a licence to possess.

In response, Health Canada reenacted virtually the same restrictions.

As a result, Federal Court Justice Barry Strayer ruled last month that the new regulations were also unconstitutional.

He noted that fewer than 20% the people with licences to possess marijuana acquire it from Prairie Plant Systems Inc., the company licensed to produce for Health Canada.

Requiring citizens to break the law and access the black market to acquire their medicine is "contrary to the rule of law," said the 75-year-old judge, who was a senior official in the federal Justice Department in the late 1970s.

The government's appeal of the decision is part of an ongoing strategy to marginalize the medicalmarijuana program, suggested Mr. Young. "This is a program the government never wanted to undertake," he said.

For medical users with licences to produce their own marijuana, there is also the constant threat of criminal prosecution.

Derek Pedro, a 35-year-old former construction industry employee who suffers from a connective tissue disorder, said he is still trying to rebuild his life after five police officers in Hamilton raided his home in January, 2007. Police seized 15 seedlings and charged Mr. Pedro with production offences, even though he has licences to possess and to grow marijuana. Eight months later, all charges were withdrawn. "I am stressed all the time. I start shaking when I see police," Mr. Pedro said. "I thought I had rights."

Using marijuana has been effective in dealing with his chronic pain and it has also enabled him to dramatically reduce his intake of such pharmaceutical drugs as OxyContin, Mr. Pedro said. The marijuana he produces costs him less than one-sixth the price that Health Canada charges for the product from Prairie Plant Systems, he noted.

Even the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police agrees there is need for improvement in access for approved medical-marijuana users.

"We need to find a better way to get that drug to them in a safe and reliable way," said Fredericton police Chief Barry MacKnight, who heads the organization's drug-abuse committee.

As well, the association has supported changes to the marijuana possession laws so that police could impose fines if appropriate. "Police officers must have the discretion to decide whether to issue a ticket or to send it to court," stressed Chief MacKnight, who does not support outright legalization of what he described as a harmful drug.

The tens of thousands of possession charges laid each year are likely individuals who face a number of other charges as well and not someone "standing on the corner smoking a joint," Chief MacKnight said.

The ongoing criminal prohibition against marijuana is a useful tool for police because it can be used as a pretext to search cars and homes for evidence of more serious crimes, said Vancouver defence lawyer Simon Buck.

While the public may approve of these tactics when police find weapons or other illegal items, it is impossible to know how many times these searches come up empty-handed, Mr. Buck said. "You never hear about those cases," he said.

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

[palmspringsbum]

Canada: Drug and Alcohol Policies vs. Human Rights: The Latest Chapter


Mondaq.com
13 February 2008
Article by E. Jane Sidnell

Safety policies in Alberta have been in constant friction with human rights legislation ever since drug and alcohol testing was implemented. Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, employers have a duty to ensure the health and safety of workers. To minimise harm caused by impairment at the worksite, owners and contractors in Alberta, particularly in the oil sands, have been incorporating drug and alcohol policies into their safety programs. While it is a laudable goal to have a safe worksite, owners and contractors have faced numerous legal challenges to drug and alcohol policies brought pursuant to the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturism Act.

The December 28, 2007 decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) v. Kellogg Root & Brown (Canada) Company¹ is the latest chapter in understanding the fine balance between drug and alcohol policies and human rights.

Kellogg Brown and Root ("KBR") was working on the Syncrude UE-1 plant expansion near Fort McMurray. As with many current oil sands projects, there were thousands of workers on the site from a number of contractors and the work required integration of the workers across employers. As with any industrial construction site, there were many job hazards and a comprehensive safety program.

KBR had instituted a drug and alcohol policy which set out its intent as being a policy to prohibit impairment as the use of alcohol or prohibited or controlled substances could adversely affect the ability of a person to work in a safe manner. KBR’s hiring policy required all persons seeking non-unionized positions to pass a "post offer/pre-employment" medical and drug test. If the person failed the test, they would not be hired, but could be re-considered after 6 months.

John Chiasson was recruited by KBR for the position of receiving inspector on the project. Mr. Chiasson was interviewed by telephone and was told of the "post offer/pre-employment" medical and drug test. The following day he was offered the position for a fixed term of 21 months, subject to the "results from [his] pre-employment medical and drug screen".

On June 28, 2002, two days after being offered the position and assuming that the marijuana that he smoked on June 22, 2002 had cleared his system, Mr. Chiasson took the pre-employment drug test. On July 8, 2002, he started work with KBR.

On July 17, 2002, KBR received the results from Mr. Chiasson’s test and Mr. Chiasson was informed that he had failed the test. At that point, Mr. Chiasson admitted that he had smoked marijuana on June 22, 2002. Mr. Chiasson was instructed to return to Calgary and when he met with KRB’s representatives, his employment was terminated.

Mr. Chiasson filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, alleging that he has been discriminated against on the basis of physical and mental disability, contrary to the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturism Act.

The Human Rights Panel determined that Mr. Chiasson was hired for a safety sensitive position within a hazardous worksite. At the hearing, Mr. Chiasson gave evidence that he was a recreational user of marijuana and not addicted to it. KBR’s representatives also testified that they did not consider Mr. Chiasson to be addicted to marijuana at the time he was terminated. The Human Rights Panel found that because there was uncontradicted evidence that Mr. Chiasson was not addicted to marijuana, there could be no actual disability due to drug addiction.

The Human Rights Panel also found that drug testing is prima facie² discriminatory with respect of addicted persons and had Mr. Chiasson fallen into that category KBR’s pre-employment testing policy would have failed to accommodate³ him contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Meiorin.⁴

The decision of the Human Rights Panel was appealed and heard by Justice Sheila Martin. Justice Martin found that the Human Rights Panel had erred in determining that Mr. Chiasson was not the subject of a perceived disability. She concluded that the effect of the KBR alcohol and drug policy was to treat recreational marijuana users as if there were addicted to marijuana and therefore KBR must have perceived Mr. Chiasson as an addict and therefore disabled.

Having found discrimination, Justice Martin looked at whether the discrimination was reasonable and justifiable as a bona fide occupational requirement⁵ and whether KBR had met it obligation to accommodate Mr. Chiasson. Justice Martin did not accept KBR's evidence that the zero tolerance policies coincided with a substantial reduction in workplace accidents as she determined there could have been other factors that reduced the number of accidents. She also determined that the zero tolerance policy provided no accommodation to Mr. Chiasson.

The Court of Appeal set aside Justice Martin's decision and reinstated the decision of the Human Rights Panel. In doing so, the Court of Appeal stated that there was no evidence that Mr. Chiasson was addicted to marijuana or that his termination by KBR was based on a perception that he was addicted to marijuana. Given these findings, the Court of Appeal determined that the KBR policy could only be discriminatory if the effect of it was that anyone testing positive was perceived as addicted and therefore disabled. As to the purpose of the KBR policy, the Court of Appeal said:<blockquote>The purpose of the policy is to reduce workplace accidents by prohibiting workplace impairment. There is a clear connection between the policy, as it applies to recreational users of cannabis, and its purpose. The policy is directed at actual effects suffered by recreational cannabis users, not perceived effects suffered by cannabis addicts. Although there is no doubt overlap between effects of casual use and use by addicts, that does not mean there is a mistaken perception that the casual user is an addict. To the extent that this conclusion is at odds with the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Entrop … we decline to follow that decision.⁶</blockquote>In speaking of the interaction between human rights legislation and workplace safety, the Court of Appeal said:<blockquote>The Act prohibits certain, but not all, treatment based on human characteristics as discriminatory. The jurisprudence has extended the prohibited grounds to include instances where an employer incorrectly perceives that an employee has a prescribed disability. In this case KBR’s policy does not perceive Chiasson to be an addict. Rather it perceives that persons who use drugs at all are a safety risk in an already dangerous workplace.⁷. . .

Extending human rights protections to situations resulting in placing the lives of others at risk flies in the face of logic.⁸</blockquote>As there was no discrimination, the Court of Appeal did not consider all of the arguments raised in the appeal. One interesting issue that the Court of Appeal left to be determined at another time is whether "public policy prevents extending human rights protections to activities that the Parliament of Canada has chosen to criminalize".

There are two other recent decisions of interest in the arena of drug and alcohol testing and how these policies relate to safe worksites which we do not have space to review.⁹ Should you be interested in obtaining copies of any of these decisions or wish to discuss the impact of these decisions further, please contact a member of the FMC Alberta Construction Group.

<span class=postbold>Footnotes</span>

1. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) v. Kellogg Root & Brown (Canada) Company, 2007 ABCA 426
   
2. Prima facie is a Latin term used to mean that something is assumed to be true unless disproved by evidence to the contrary
   
3. Employers have a duty to accommodate their disabled employees, though the extent of the accommodation will be determined on a case-by-case basis having consideration for such factors as the type of position and what can be reasonably accommodated for such a position, the type of employment (full, part-time or casual), the length of the employment, and previous accommodation given to the employee
   
4. British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. British Columbia G.S.E.U., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3, known as the "Meiorin" case
   
5. A "bona fide occupational requirement" or "BFOR" is a term of art that is used by the courts to test whether a discriminatory practice is reasonable for the occupation; for instance, a bus driver cannot be blind
   
6. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) v. Kellogg Root & Brown (Canada) Company, 2007 ABCA 426, at paragraph 33
   
7. Supra, at paragraph 34
   
8. Supra, at paragraph 36
   
9. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 488 v. Bantrel Constructors Co., 2007 ABQC 721; and PCL Industrial Constructors Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local Lodge No. 146, [2007] A.G.A.A. No. 65

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.

[palmspringsbum]

B.C. tribunal rules firm discriminated against employee for marijuana use

The Canadian Press
February 19, 2008

VANCOUVER - The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has ruled a window contractor discriminated against an employee because his physical disability allowed him to smoke medical marijuana.

The company has been told to pay $500 for injury to the man's dignity, feelings and self respect. Greg Wilson's claim against Transparent Glazing Systems alleged he was fired after a superintendent's letter sent to company management said Wilson's medication seemed to impair his ability to do the job.

Wilson, who smokes pot for migraine headaches and bulging back discs, denied the allegation at a hearing last May.

Company officials told the rights tribunal that Wilson was fired because he was disrespectful, verbally abusive and difficult to work with.

In her ruling, tribunal member Diane MacLean wrote that while there was little disagreement between the events, the conclusions drawn were very different.

"(Wilson) viewed himself as an experienced and competent tradesperson," MacLean said. "He felt that his difficulties on the job had to do with the attitudes and work ethics of his co-workers."

Philip Aquin, the owner of Transparent Glazing, said during the hearing that Wilson was given the opportunity to run a project, but it was apparent that he was not qualified to do the job.

The hearing was told that company managers even held an emergency meeting about Wilson's temper and attitude.

"Mr Wilson was throwing tantrums, including throwing material around," MacLean wrote.

Wilson objected to the reference is the supervisor's note that his medication impaired his ability to do his work.

"Mr. Wilson believed that the superintendent was referring to his marijuana use and, since he had a medical marijuana licence, he was doing nothing illegal," MacLean stated.

Aquin fired Wilson in March 2006, nine months after he was hired, saying no employee wanted to work with him and that the superintendent's letter was the "final straw."

MacLean ruled the company discriminated against Wilson because of his physical disability.

"Mr Wilson also maintained, and I agree, that he was adversely treated because he was not given an opportunity to respond to allegations regarding drug use."

She said Transparent Glazing Systems had a duty to ask if Wilson's disability was affecting his performance.

MacLean didn't order the company to pay for lost wages, saying Wilson likely would have been fired in any event over his incompetence.

She noted that Wilson denied during the hearing that pot smoking had any impact on his job abilities.

"However, I accept that there was an insult to his dignity when TGS appeared to rely on the superintendent's perception that Mr. Wilson was impaired due to his medication."

[palmspringsbum]

Government policy keeps couple apart

<span class=postbigbold>Student says people won’t take them seriously because of boyfriend’s medical marijuana</span>

The Muse
By Sheena Goodyear and Tariro Mudede
February 21, 2008


When MUN student Kirsten Joy moved in with her boyfriend Mike Dawe, she thought it would be forever.

But a year down the line, a government policy forced her to pack her bags and move across town, when she got a letter warning that she was not allowed to receive two forms of income support at once.

Joy receives a full student loan and Dawe collects government aid because he has a rare and debilitating genetic disorder called Marfan Syndrome, which affects his body’s joints, connective tissues, and heart.

“So I thought, ‘That’s weird, I don’t even get any of Mike’s money,’” said Joy.

But because they lived together as common law, their income was considered shared, and legislation forbids one household from collecting two forms of government assistance at the same time.

Soon after, Dawe’s funding was cut off.

“I really don’t consider a student loan a form of income because it is something that I have to pay back,” said Joy.

But provincial Minister of Human Resources Shawn Skinner says a student loan is considered part of an individual’s total income, and must be declared as such.

“Potentially someone could have a student loan that is considered income, and that could reduce the amount of income support they receive,” he said.

The couple appealed the decision twice, contacted their MP, their MHA, the Human Rights Board, the provincial Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment (HRLE), and the provincial Department of Justice – all to no avail.

Joy spoke before a disabilities committee public meeting with Skinner in attendance. Still nothing changed.

Skinner says he’s unfamiliar with the case, but that if Joy and Dawe contact him personally, he’d be happy to review it.

“Call my office, and I’m very hands on, and I try to be as flexible as possible,” he said. “The idea is we try to assist people – we don’t try to prevent people from getting ahead.”

Marfan Syndrome is characterized by unusually long limbs – Dawe is six feet, nine inches tall. Chronic pain from the disease, and from a rib that was displaced during a teenage surgery, prevents him from entering the work force. He also has a steel aortic valve and an elastic sleeve in his heart, which makes taking high-powered painkillers, like morphine, impossible.

Instead, he uses medical marijuana. He can legally grow 49 plants, and has a prescription for 10 grams a day.

“He grows his medicine because he needs it,” said Joy.

Joy says her student loan is not enough to cover both their bills and the cost of the plants, so she had no choice but to pack up and move in with her mother across town. She has since received her full loan.

But Dawe’s HRLE funding is still not coming in because Joy’s decision to leave was considered “a move of convenience.” As far as they know, he will not be compensated for the money he’s lost.

“I sold every bit of furniture when I moved in with Mike, because in our minds, it was a forever thing,” she said. “I’m moving out because I’m not going to be able to afford to live here, and they can call it convenient all they want, but it’s not convenient.”

With his HRLE funding cut off, Dawe’s only income is $400 a month from Health and Community Services – not even enough to cover his power bill, let alone fund his medical grow-op.

“If you were on morphine or Demerol you would get everything paid for you, because you’re taking an addictive narcotic rather than something that’s natural, and not addictive, and this is why I think we are getting mistreated like this, because they don’t understand med marijuana,” said Joy.

Skinner says an individual’s expenses – medicinal or otherwise – are not taken into account when calculating support. Only the total income in a household is measured.

It’s no small feat to grow all those plants – Dawe, who studied botany at MUN, spends hours caring for them.

“He works harder than anyone I know,” said Joy. “It’s not just popping a seed in the soil and watering it and expecting it to grow. In order to grow good medical pot – there’s cloning, there’s chemistry, there’s mixing nutrients, there’s getting water PH balanced.”

And with seeds, soil, equipment, and light, the cost of growing pot can run quite high – Joy estimates about $1,500 a month.

While Joy explains all this in what used to be her living room, Dawe, who declined an official interview, is busy upstairs working with his plants.

He later comes down and introduces himself. Despite the drugs, he is perfectly lucid.

Upstairs, he has two bright rooms for growing the plants, which are almost as tall as he is. Their smell penetrates the whole house.

Tucked away in a corner, past the two rooms, is the bedroom that Joy and Dawe used to share.

In the meantime, Joy will stay with her mother until she finishes school – either at the end of the summer or a few years down the road if she decides to pursue an honours degree.

“I want to live with Mike,” she said. “I know policy is policy, but compassion should override policy in situations like this.”

Skinner agrees that sometimes policy needs to be flexible.

“As we all know, there’s always exceptions, and there’s always times you need to fine tune your policies, or even change them for that matter. Maybe it needs to be changed. But until I know more detail, there’s not much I can do to help,” he said.

[palmspringsbum]

The Prince of Pot Makes a Pitch to Conservatives

Reason Online
Jacob Sullum | February 22, 2008, 3:51pm

<table class=posttable align=right width=300><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg src=bin/emery_marc-and-jodie.jpg></td></tr></table>Libertarian activist Marc Emery, who faces extradition to the United States for selling marijuana seeds to Americans, makes his case to Canadian conservatives in a three-part video posted on the Western Standard's blog. Emery explains how, inspired by Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises, he embarked on campaigns of civil disobedience against unjust laws, including bans on Sunday retailing, "obscene" recordings such as 2 Live Crew's As Nasty As They Wanna Be, and drug-oriented publications. His most conspicuous effort was his marijuana seed business, aimed at "overgrowing the government" and raising money for the worldwide marijuana legalization movement. It proved a little too conspicuous.

Emery's operation, which shipped seeds to the U.S. and other countries, was one of hundreds such vendors in Canada, and he operated openly for more than a decade with little trouble from the government, which happily accepted the taxes generated by his business. But his financial support for drug policy reform groups, his political activism as founder of the B.C. Marijuana Party, and his advocacy of legalization in forums such as his Pot TV website and his magazine Cannabis Culture irritated both Vancouver police and American drug warriors, who conspired to arrest him and ship him to the U.S. for trial on drug trafficking, conspiracy, and money laundering charges that could send him to prison for the rest of his life. In Canada, by contrast, the worst penalty he was apt to face for selling marijuana seeds to growers was a fine, and in practice the government not only turned a blind eye but referred medical marijuana patients to him.

By Emery's account, the effort to arrest and extradite him began after he heckled John Walters during the U.S. drug czar's visit to Vancouver in November 2002. "That's really what this is all about," he says. "Three days later, his friends at the Vancouver Police Department opened an investigation of me." This is not as far-fetched as it might sound, since the day of Emery's arrest in July 2005 DEA head Karen Tandy admitted it was politically motivated, implying that Emery was being punished for his activism and philanthropy:

Today's arrest of Mark [sic] Scott Emery, publisher of Cannabis Culture magazine and the founder of a marijuana legalization group, is a significant blow not only to the marijuana trafficking trade in the U.S. and Canada, but also to the marijuana legalization movement. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of Emery's illicit profits are known to have been channeled to marijuana legalization groups active in the United States and Canada. Drug legalization lobbyists now have one less pot of money to rely on.

As I noted last month, Emery has tentatively accepted a Justice Department deal under which he would serve five years and his two co-defendants (one of whom uses marijuana to relieve the symptoms of Crohn's disease) would be released. Emery, who wants to serve all or at least most of his sentence in Canada, says he is still negotiating the details of that arrangement. He proposes another way out: If the Canadian authorities charged him with illegally selling marijuana seeds, he says, there would be no reason to extradite him; he could instead be tried in a Canadian court under Canadian laws and face the penalties Canadians consider appropriate.

Part of Emery's pitch to conservatives is that the U.S. government's prosecution of him impinges on Canadian sovereignty. He likens his situation to that of a Canadian charged with sending Falun Gong literature to China, selling alcohol to Saudis, or running a gambling website used by Americans, and asks whether the Canadian government would agree to extradition in those cases. "I've always defended peaceful, honest lifestyle choices," he concludes. "I paid all my taxes, never hurt anybody, only violated unjust laws transparently and openly, and that is something every conservative and libertarian should be able to get behind."

[palmspringsbum]

February 25, 2008

Pot smoking patient learns patience

By MATT KIELTYKA, 24 HOURS


As if the long, painful road to recovery from a debilitating medical condition wasn't enough, a Burnaby woman says she's being persecuted for using marijuana to cope.

Two years ago, Olga Eredics finally gave in to her doctor's suggestion to try medical marijuana after a bout with multiple sclerosis left her in a wheelchair in 2002.

Although she still deals with tremendous pain every day, Eredics is able to walk and exercise with the help of cannabis.

"I was against the idea at first because I had never smoked anything in my life and it made no sense to me," she said. "But I wouldn't be able to do my exercises without using it to get me through the pain."

Eredics credits prescribed cannabis for her livelihood, but it's also been a source of abuse and emotional pain since she started using it.

"There is a lot of negative scrutiny," she claims. "People look at me with hate and scoff. People look at me like I'm a criminal."

The glares and comments have had an unfair psychological effect on Eredics, who only feels comfortable lighting up in areas where people recognize her.

The situation was made worse two weeks ago during an altercation with security guards near the Metrotown area, which is part of Eredics' daily walking route.

"They saw the marijuana and approached me and a friend," she recalls. "They told me to get lost. When I told them I had my Health Canada licence one of them called me scum. I couldn't believe it."

The situation was ultimately resolved, but Eredics says it's just the latest example of society's ignorance.

"There is another side to what people see. I wouldn't be able to walk without it," she pleads. "I just want to be seen as part of the community."

[palmspringsbum]

What a hypocrit!!!

Can you believe this, from the Clown Prince of Pot?

<i>"I don't see people with insulin bringing their syringes out in the middle of restaurants and giving themselves injections," Emery, who is facing a 10-year jail sentence at the U.S.'s behest for selling marijuana seeds, said from his home in B.C., noting that since Gibson was drinking alcohol at the time of the Burlington incident in 2005, he could have ingested the cannabis via an alcoholic tincture that would have been just as effective and more discreet.

"It's important, when you're a minority, to appear to be reasonable about your needs and requirements," he added. "Clearly, it's an imposition on businesses to have to monitor the quality of certain smokes outside their front door. That's unreasonable. When you're balancing your rights against the rights of others, there is a certain sense of reasonableness required."</i>

February 26, 2008

Legal joint ignites debate

MEDICINAL MARIJUANA
By 24 HOURS NEWS SERVICES


Losing the ability to smoke medicinal marijuana in public places is a troubling prospect for a Burnaby woman recovering from multiple sclerosis.

Olga Eredics, who two weeks ago was confronted for sparking up with prescription in hand by security guards patrolling the Metrotown area, worries government policy against tobacco but ambiguous to marijuana may harm her quality of life.

"That frightens me because I wouldn't be able to do my exercises," Eredics said. "At the end of the day, the pain is too much for me to walk home."

Federal NDP drug policy critic Libby Davies said the reluctance of governments, both the previous Liberals and now the Conservatives, to clear up the "botched" legislation that the Liberals brought in 2001 "kicking and screaming" has resulted in problems not just for the public but also for users themselves.

"The law says they [medicinal pot smokers] are allowed to do what they're doing, and yet there are so many barriers that make it almost impossible for them to be able to use medical marijuana," she said from her constituency office in Vancouver's East Side

Federal Health Minister Tony Clement declined to comment, but a spokesman for his office did e-mail 24 hours news services stating that where licensed pot smokers can light up is provincial jurisdiction.

However, the province's ministry of health, rejected the federal suggestion that it's British Columbia's job to police where medical marijuana users can smoke.

The province's smoke-free B.C. legislation deals exclusively with tobacco smoke, said ministry spokesperson Sarah Plank.

Not surprisingly, since marijuana is a federally controlled substance and only a federal exemption can allow people to access it, restrictions on the use of marijuana would be "under Health Canada's jurisdiction," she said.

The only explicit guidance merely recommends discretion and comes from a Health Canada form used by applicants for medical marijuana.

"Given the nature of marihuana [sic] and the fact that the provision of marihuana is for your personal treatment needs, Health Canada recommends not consuming this controlled substance in a public place," the application form states.

The aging of the Baby Boom generation and increasing medical acceptance of the possible benefits associated with medical marijuana is creating demand for the drug.

The number of licensed users in Canada - currently just under 2,500 - has increased over the past six years by an average of 371 new licensed marijuana users per year.

But although licensed users number about 2,500, the Canadian Medical Association estimated in a 2001 journal article titled "Marijuana: Federal smoke clears, a little" that about 400,000 Canadians use cannabis for medical use.

The increase and the number of people who may be eligible to smoke marijuana legally, said celebrated pro-marijuana lawyer and Osgoode Hall law professor Alan Young, should get governments moving to not only clean up the legislation, but also legitimize marijuana's use in society.

"We know that the numbers in Health Canada's program ... can easily grow five-fold. At some point, we are going to have to tackle this issue about public medicinal use," he said, noting common sense could go a long way to balance everyone's rights.

Even Canada's own Prince of Pot, Marc Emery, said common sense and reason are paramount in this issue to effectively balance everyone's rights.

"I don't see people with insulin bringing their syringes out in the middle of restaurants and giving themselves injections," Emery, who is facing a 10-year jail sentence at the U.S.'s behest for selling marijuana seeds, said from his home in B.C., noting that since Gibson was drinking alcohol at the time of the Burlington incident in 2005, he could have ingested the cannabis via an alcoholic tincture that would have been just as effective and more discreet.

"It's important, when you're a minority, to appear to be reasonable about your needs and requirements," he added. "Clearly, it's an imposition on businesses to have to monitor the quality of certain smokes outside their front door. That's unreasonable. When you're balancing your rights against the rights of others, there is a certain sense of reasonableness required."

WHO CAN SMOKE

The federal government could issue you a licence to smoke pot if you suffer from one of the following illnesses:

- Multiple sclerosis

- Spinal cord injuries or diseases

- Cancer

- HIV/AIDS

- Arthritis

- Epilepsy

- The government will also consider granting a licence to someone who suffers debilitating symptoms from additional medical conditions if confirmed by a specialist.

- Marijuana is also sometimes used to treat glaucoma.

- Source: Health Canada's website

[palmspringsbum]

<span class=postbold>NEIL MACDONALD:</span>

Going to pot

<span class=postbigbold>Conflicting U.S. marijuana laws a simmering volcano</span>

February 26, 2008

If Jean Chrétien is still thinking about that post-retirement doobie he famously contemplated during his last days in power, he might want to come down here and smoke it in California.

Or, for that matter, in Nevada. Or Colorado or Mississippi.

If he decides to go for it, the former prime minister's pot experimentation could proceed unmolested in a whole list of American jurisdictions.

In fact, while Washington continues to lecture the rest of the world about recreational drug use — and bares its teeth when countries like Canada even consider relaxing their drug laws — millions of Americans are creating some of the most pot-friendly communities in the world.

"One out of three of us, 100 million people, now live in a state or municipality where marijuana is effectively decriminalized," says Allen St. Pierre, director of NORML, the largest marijuana advocacy group in the U.S. "That's a lot of debauchery. It's also par for the course."

<span class=postbigbold>West coast buzz</span>

California's gone further than anyone else.

Here in Los Angeles, pot is a pastime. Californians not only smoke it rather carelessly, they use their cultural bullhorn, Hollywood, to make sure the rest of the world knows they do.

Movies and TV shows generally convey the California view of pot smoking — an enjoyable, hip, group pursuit.

The state's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, was actually filmed smoking dope during his muscleman days.

Vince and the young L.A. hedonists on HBO's Entourage are always getting blasted by the pool, or lighting one up after dinner. Even 25 years ago, The Big Chill used marijuana to evoke a sense of nostalgia and rekindled friendship.

If you can get your hands on a prescription, and it's not terribly difficult to do so here, you can join California's 200,000 state-sanctioned users of medical marijuana, and getting high gets even easier. (That's not to say cancer or glaucoma patients don't need it. They clearly do. But everyone knows some of the card-carrying users are just happy, happy stoners.)

There are medical marijuana dispensaries all over the state, offering high-grade pot just dripping with resin for a reasonable price. There are even dispensing machines here. Just let them scan your fingerprint, and swipe your pre-paid card, and a quarter-ounce of weed in a brightly colored envelope rustles down the pipe and into your waiting hand.

In fact, the only objection Californians have to smoking pot is the actual smoking part. West coasters regard smoking anything as not just unhealthy, but disgusting, some sort of anti-progressive habit from the industrial East.

<span class=postbigbold>Pass the Volcano</span>

I was invited to a little get-together here this month at a home in one of L.A.'s tonier neighbourhoods, not too far, actually, from the mansion used in The Beverly Hillbillies.

The host cooked up batches of homemade pizza and as I savoured a glass of his Stag's Leap Cellars cabernet, surely one of California's loveliest exports, I noticed something like a stainless-steel blender humming away on his kitchen counter. Sitting limply atop its base, rather than a mixing bowl, was a long cellophane sleeve, perhaps the diameter of a man's leg.

"That's the Volcano," explained my host. "It's an aromatizer. It works on more or less the same principle as aromatherapy, if you're familiar with that. Except it's for marijuana, actually."

The Volcano, I would learn later on the internet, was effectively melting the herb inside its chamber with a jet of superheated air, avoiding combustion, and all the nasty, carcinogenic chemicals involved with actual smoke.

As my host and I watched, the sleeve slowly inflated to full upright position, filled with a mist of tetrahydrocannabinol, marijuana's active ingredient. No one in the room would have ever considered lighting anything up, but everyone seemed to enjoy passing around a mist-filled bag with an inhaler valve on the end. In the pot community, it's known as bag capturing.

"Bag capture delivers about 98 per cent of what the user is seeking," says NORML's St. Pierre. "And two per cent of what none of us wants to put in our bodies. It's by far the least harmful, most healthful way, if you will, of consuming cannabis in a 'smoked' way."

<span class=postbigbold>Mapping the change</span>

Washington, especially under the Bush administration, objects to all this casual hedonism, and the feds have been throwing their weight around here lately.

The owners of buildings that house California's medical marijuana dispensaries have begun receiving letters from the federal government informing them they are violating federal law, state law be damned, and that their property might be seized. Federal agents have even raided a few.

So far, the Supreme Court has backed Washington, ruling that the federal government is entitled to enforce its ban on marijuana anywhere in the country. Tellingly, though, the court has not struck down the state's permissive laws.

States here have wide latitude to govern themselves according to the moral views of their respective societies, and, for the past 35 years, voters in state after state have made it clear through ballot initiatives that marijuana doesn't overly offend them.

Marijuana is now effectively decriminalized in 11 states, plus the District of Columbia.

If, for example, a traffic cop in Ohio catches you with less than three ounces of marijuana, he will most likely ticket you with a small fine, and may seize the dope. There's no criminal conviction. The threshold amounts and fines change, but it's more or less the same story in Alaska, Oregon, California, Nevada, Colorado, Nebraska, Mississippi, New York, Maine and North Carolina.

Police in some of those states won't even issue the ticket.

And even in states that have not relaxed their laws, municipalities have gone ahead and done it themselves. Places like Milwaukee, Ann Arbor, Seattle, Cambridge, and Columbia, Mo., have either instructed their police departments not to make possession arrests, or made enforcement of marijuana laws their lowest priority.

<span class=postbigbold>Canada's home-grown approach</span>

Chrétien could enjoy that retirement joint in any one of these places without fear. At home, though, he'd have to be a lot more careful, despite the enduring American image of Canada as a paradise for left-wing dope-smokers.

Chrétien's late-career efforts to relax Canadian marijuana laws died on the order paper with his government, and Stephen Harper's view on the matter is closer to that of George W. Bush.

Canadian police can and do charge people with simple possession, and conviction can mean a criminal record, which in turn means a lifetime of headaches, including a ban on travel to the United States.

If that sounds ironic, it is.

American conservatives take note: your country has pushed the pro-pot envelope much further than Canada has. Americans grow far more pot than Canadians do. There are no commercial pot dispensaries in Canada. And Volcanoes erupt mostly in California.

[palmspringsbum]

Illusion of Access

Monday Publications
Feb 27 2008

It is only thanks to favourable decisions by a handful of committed lawyers and sympathetic judges that Canada boasts even the anaemic national medical cannabis program it has today.

The slow march toward establishing the rights of the sick to access therapeutic pot began in 1999 when a superior court judge recognized Ontario resident Jim Wakeford’s right to grow and possess cannabis to treat symptoms of his HIV/AIDS without fear of legal recourse by the state. In response to that ruling, Health Canada declared it would henceforth allow clients meeting its vague criteria to receive an exemption to Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA).

In 2000, the Ontario Court of Appeals ruled the Section 56 exemptions unconstitutional in the case of Terry Parker when it was revealed there was no regulatory oversight and that discretion for who could, or could not, receive a Section 56 exemption rested entirely with the Canadian Minister of Health.

Philippe Lucas writes in the January 2008 issue of Harm Reduction Journal, “As a result of these legal challenges the constitutional validity of Canada’s drug control program regulations is now legally dependent on the existence of a working federal medical cannabis program.” [Emphasis added by Monday.]

Today, that program is the Marihuana Medical Access Division, built from the ashes of the Office of Cannabis Medical Access.

However, in January 2003 the MMAD was found unconstitutional by Ontario Superior Court Justice Sidney Lederman, who accused the federal government of providing what he called the “illusion of access.” Lederman’s ruling required Heath Canada to supply authorized clients a regular and legal supply of medical cannabis.

“Laws which put seriously ill, vulnerable people in a position where they have to deal with the criminal underworld to obtain medicine they have been authorized to take, violate the constitutional right to security of the person,” Justice Lederman said in his ruling.

In October that same year, the Ontario Court of Appeals ruled five MMAR sections constitutionally invalid.

In January 2008, Federal Justice Barry Strayer ruled it unconstitutional that licensed growers should be bound to grow for only one client. This ruling opens the way for licensed growers to begin supplying cannabis to multiple clients.

“In my view it is not tenable for the government to, consistently with the rights established in other courts for qualified medical users to have reasonable access to marijuana, to force them either to buy from the government contractor, grow their own or be limited to the unnecessarily restrictive system of designated producers,” wrote Strayer.

Currently the Vancouver Island Compassion Society is in B.C. Supreme Court following a 2004 raid on its Metchosin production facility to challenge the constitutionally of the MMAD on the grounds the federal branch unnecessarily restricts access to the program, supplies an inadequate source of cannabis and imposes arbitrary limitations on production and distribution.

—Jason Youmans