Marijuana.com

MrIMStoned

How can it be a move by the Harper government when the liberals were in power when Emery was arrested?

__________________
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

 

Ghanji

I mean the extradition. Sure he was arrested, what does it matter which Government is in power when that happens? They're under fire from the U.S to arrest him so that's what they did. He had a far better chance of not being extradited (or at least some 'reasonable' compromise being made) with the Liberals than he does with the Conservatives. I'm willing to bet Harper will be happy to send Marc over the border if it'll get him in better with Bush.

Peace

__________________
George W. must have earned his name from King George 3rd

MrIMStoned

It was the justice minister at the time who had to sign off on the DEA's request to arrest Emery. Irwin Cotler was already carting him off to the states before the conservative were in power. The new Justice Minister has little to nothing to do with the remaining events.

Ghanji

I thought it was Vic Toews who would decide that Marc would be extradited if he thought there was no political ambition involved?!?

Peace

MrIMStoned

Nope. Cotler made the decision that it wasn't politically motivated when he signed over emery in the first place. The current minister could over turn his decision but it has already been decided that he's off to the states. The initial decision was a Liberal one. So toews has nothing to do with it unless he decides that emery should stay, which he won't.

 

Ghanji

Ah i see. Well then my appologies for pinning the blame on Harper's Government. Doesn't change my opinion of them though.
They weren't the first, but if they have the power to overturn that decission and neglect to then they are still just as much at fault in my eyes. I realize this all comes down to political handshanking, but come on, we're talking about a human life.

Peace

Jose Melendez

Since Parliament only legislates, and courts only abrogate, the 2003 decision by Ontario Superior Court Justice Steven Rogin to uphold the lower court ruling by provincial court judge Phillips that Canada's cannabis laws no longer exist might ultimately prove to mean that marijuana is technically legal in that country.

Similarly, since the U.S. Congress was repeatedly lied to under oath by those who stood to gain personally and financially, perhaps we need to expose those lies which were recorded and may be read in the Congressional transcripts, and show publicly that pot was never legally prohibited.

Buzzby

Gonzales v. Raich confirmed that marijuana was legally prohibited.

The fact that lies were told to legislators in no way abrogates the laws they passed. They stand until struck down as being unconstitutional or they are repealed.

__________________

MrIMStoned

Since Parliament only legislates, and courts only abrogate, the 2003 decision by Ontario Superior Court Justice Steven Rogin to uphold the lower court ruling by provincial court judge Phillips that Canada's cannabis laws no longer exist might ultimately prove to mean that marijuana is technically legal in that country.

You need to read this thread.

Jose Melendez

Re: Gonzales v. Raich confirmed that marijuana was legally prohibited.

The fact that lies were told to legislators in no way abrogates the laws they passed. They stand until struck down as being unconstitutional or they are repealed.

A: I have to go to work now, and will follow this post up later. For now, here's some food for thought on this concededly contentious but important issue.

- - -

For the better part of a century with threats of jail, asset forfeiture and actual torture they have taxed us to death, over lies that even the government lawyer arguing before the Supreme Court in Raich hints he knows to be false claims:

from: http://tinyurl.com/82g2f

"JUSTICE STEVENS: Do you think there could be any state of facts on which a judicial tribunal could disagree with the finding of Congress that there's no acceptable medical use?

Say they had a -- say there was a judicial hearing on which they made a contrary finding.

Would we have to ignore that? Would we have to follow the congressional finding or the judicial finding if that happened?

MR. CLEMENT: Well, it depends on the exact hypothetical you have in mind. I think the -- the judicial finding that I think would be appropriate, and this Court would not have to ignore in any way, is a finding by the D.C. Circuit that, in a particular case where there's a rescheduling effort before the FDA, that the underlying judgement of the FDA refusing to reschedule is invalid, arbitrary, capricious.

That's the way to go after the finding that marijuana is a Schedule I substance without a valid medical use in treatment."

- - -
"While the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause is "plenary," that power has constitutional limits":

- - -

from: http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1775/

"In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. Stevens argued that the Court's precedent "firmly established" Congress' commerce clause power to regulate purely local activities that are part of a "class of activities" with a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market. The majority distinguished the case from Lopez and Morrison. In those cases, statutes regulated non-economic activity and fell entirely outside Congress' commerce power;"

- - -

"In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that Congress lacked the authority to enact a statute under the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment since the statute did not regulate an activity that substantially affected interstate commerce nor did it redress harm caused by the state."

- - -

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that lottery tickets were indeed "subjects of traffic," and that independent carriers may be regulated under the Commerce Clause. The Court emphasized the broad discretion Congress enjoys in regulating commerce, noting that this power "is plenary, is complete in itself, and is subject to no limitations except such as may be found in the Constitution." The Court argued that Congress was merely assisting those states that wished to protect public morals by prohibiting lotteries within their borders.

- - -

Q: Does the Food and Drug Administration have the authority to regulate tobacco products as "drugs" and "devices" under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act?

A: No.

" . . . Congress, for better or for worse, has created a distinct regulatory scheme for tobacco products, squarely rejected proposals to give the FDA jurisdiction over tobacco, and repeatedly acted to preclude any agency from exercising significant policymaking authority in the area."

- - -

"It seems clear that as the plant cultivated is charged as cannabis-
marihuana in order to create and constitute the offence notwithstanding that
possession of cannabis -marihuana is lawful to possess, then there is no
foundation to the charge, it would appear logical as the Government has
always contended and indeed so stated in specific statute, that cannabis
-marihuana includes every part of the plant including the stalk. Possessing
the plant and nurturing it then cannot be construed otherwise than
possession of cannabis-marihuana. Possession of the plant then can
constitute only possession of marihuana.

Likewise, for CDSA 5(1) possession of Cannabis- Marihuana for the purpose of
trafficking, the gravamen of the offence is the possession of
cannabis-marihuana. The possession being lawful and as the crime can only be
construed as one that relates to unlawfully possessed substances (Schedules)
what one does with lawfully possessed substances cannot be construed or
interpreted as an illegal or unlawful act on the part of the possessor.
Possession of that substance cannabis-marihuana spoken to in the Schedules
is not criminal and cannot be made so at the whim and fancy of the RCMP by
charging or acting willfully and knowingly contrary to law and the Charter.

CDSA s. 4(1) 5(1) 7 (1) are all totally reliant upon proof of possession of
an unlawful substance. As possession of Cannabis- Marihuana is still lawful
and non of the stated statutes are enforceable by the RCMP and Federal
Prosecutors they act unlawfully when they do so and are subject to damages
and other sanctions whenever they act in excess of Federal law, especially
where the law has been held as to them to be unconstitutional and of no
force and effect.

Until such time as Parliament re-enacts CDSA s. 4(1) with constitutional
safeguards that are not dependant upon the whims and fancies of the Governor
in council and the ability to alter regulation on a daily basis possession
of Cannabis-Marihuana cannot be enforced by Federal agencies nor may they
form part (o)f any provincial scheme that permit them to take action without
the written authorization of a Provincial Government that PARLIAMENT
consents to which would make Her Majesty the Queen responsible under the
rule of vicarious liability."

from: http://www.marijuana.com/420/showpos...4&postcount=10

- -

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-38.8/...227/index.html

- - -

1 Does prohibiting possession of Cannabis (marihuana) for personal use under s. 3(1) of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1, by reason of the inclusion of this substance in s. 3 of the Schedule to the Act (now s. 1, Schedule II, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19), infringe s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Answer: Yes.

2 If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is the infringement justified under s. 1 of the Charter?

Answer: No.

from: http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-sc...scr3_0571.html

- - -

see also: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/mpforms.htm