Marijuana.com

Larmer

Ok, this is well needed, there's no sense in having people misunderstand the laws in this country. I'll update this as much as possible, whenever there's any changes in the laws.

The changes in the summer were confusing for a lot of people, possession was actually legal for a short period, but that has changed since.

Right now, in February 2004:

Possession of any amount is illegal, no word on punishment, it varies by locale. Expect very lenient treatment, but no guarantees, ie. hope you're not in Alberta.

Cultivation is illegal, once again punishment varies by location. Magnitude is very important, as the courts do differentiate between personal grows and organized crime linked commercial grow ops. Regardless, expect probation or a suspended sentence for the small scale.

__________________
Posting Guidelines

 

Suetaz

Looks like the B.S. is starting all ready...according to MAP Inc news on the front page, new legislation could allow roadside tests for drug-impaired drivers.
So far he's had lots of opposition, but this is my favorite:

__________________

rfarries

I laugh because pot use in Canada is PERVASIVE.
The sooner that government and the judiciary realize this, the better.
If only to piss off our neighbours to the south, I hope Marijuana is Legalized as soon as possible.

And I believe that legalization IS coming.

Find Your God
Find Your Self
Legalize!

Rob

Suetaz

I think they realize it, or are starting to, the hard part will be getting them to ADMIT it. Publicly. I think this year will be the year for the most activism yet on this issue. I'm looking forward to it. 'Fill The Hill', here I come!

ggg

fill the hill!!!! if there is going to be a rally on the hill let me know i'll be there!!!

 

Suetaz

check out this link: Upcoming Canadian Events

This is from an email I got...


FILL THE HILL

On Saturday, June 5, 2004 Canadians from across the country will
stage an unprecedented political demonstration on Parliament
Hill in Ottawa. Endorsed by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association
(BCCLA), Fill the Hill: Freedom March on Parliament Hill will
feature prominent political leaders and activists from across
Canada.

Speakers include Libby Davies, NDP M.P. for Vancouver-East and
former member of the ‘decrim’ Bill (C-38) House committee,
Honourable Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, member of the Senate of Canada
and Chair of the comprehensive and extensive Special Senate
Committee on Illegal Drugs, Eugene Oscapella, director of the
Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, Kirk Tousaw, Policy Director for
the BCCLA, David Malmo-Levine, recent Supreme Court appellant,
Alison Myrden, noted medical marijuana activist, Philippe Lucas
from Canadians for Safe Access and the Vancouver Island
Compassion Society, Marc Boris-St. Maurice, leader of the Marijuana Party
of Canada, and Marc Emery, President of the B.C. Marijuana
Party.

Come join us for a wicked time.. Get involved, organize a group,
bring your friends.. It's going to be a historic occasion --
Likely the biggest ever pro-marijuana protest in Canada. Where will
you tell your kids you were during the Woodstock of Pot
Legalization?

queen

I may be wrong... I knew it was legal last summer but now it isn't, right?

But then again the way we have smoked here you would swear it was legal.....more reason it should be.

Suetaz

Right, it's illegal again. For now...

From what I've been learning, it seems to depend on where you live and what the attitudes are. And of course how many of your friends smoke weed. I don't know enough people that smoke weed. I want it legalized so others will feel free to try it and will 'join the crowd'. I know some people that I would rather see stoned than drunk, if ya know what I mean. Some people turn into @ssholes when alcohol is added and would probably be tolerable or even funny stoned.

siberiankyss

i try to keep myself aware of the whole legalization/decriminalization etc **** around here...but all i know is that cops can be pretty chill with you here in MOntreal, Quebec.....if you got like...a 7's or even a 14's.....and you got no cash or no real evidence that you're trafficing, then they'll usually let you go with some fine.....

but obviously if you have like an ounce and you got all this cash on you, baggies, etc....then you're ****ed...

BuzzzWorthy

Ed Pearson is a Canadian Lawyer

This was sent in an email so I believe it is public domain.

THIS IS FREE: What you do with this information is up to you and your
lawyers:


RCMP officers acted contrary to Federal Law [Controlled Drug and Substances
Act and Charter s. 8.

Federal authorities acted illegally and unlawfully when they conducted the
raid, seizure and arrest at VICS.

In Parker v Q. the Ontario Court of Appeal by Order held that the
prohibition in s. 4(1) of the CDSA, a Federal Act other than the Criminal
Code of Canada, possession of cannabis was unconstitutional and of no force
and effect


Federal Acts like the Income Tax Act create certain criminal acts that are
investigated and process issued by and on behalf of the RCMP. While it is
true that Provincial police authorities may intervene and act in respect of
the CDSA, the judgment of Parker v Q, Ontario Court of Appeal has
application Canada wide as relates to the RCMP and Federal prosecutors and
prosecutions, in that respect the Parker judgment controlled as to them not
only within Ontario but throughout Canada.

Parliament failed to re-enact CDSA s. 4(1) prohibiting the possession of
cannabis.

In Hitzig et al, Ontario Court of Appeal Oct. 7, 2003, the Ontario Court of
Appeal, ORDERED only that certain sections of the MMAR were unconstitutional
and of no force and effect. That was the full extent of the Order in that
case. The Order failed to touch upon the declared unconstitutional
prohibition against possession of cannabis. Thus, in law and fact, the RCMP
and Federal Prosecutors act unlawfully and at their peril when the attempt
to enforce a law that as regards Federal agencies and the Federal Government
no longer has any force and effect.

The RCMP and Federal Prosecutors attempt to circumvent the law by charging
people with either cultivation of cannabis (marihuana) CDSA 7(1) of CDSA
5(1) possession for the purposes of trafficking (Cannabis-marihuana) or
trafficking in a forbidden substance, (cannabis-marihuana).

It is clear and self evident that the essential element of each of those
offences is cannabis-marihuana as set forth in the CDSA schedules.

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 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.

Best answer I can give on such short notice.

Ed Pearson,

__________________
Reality Check Please