Pot laws don't violate charter : Canada's top court

[frogfromthenorth2]

OTTAWA - Canada's laws making the possession of small amounts of marijuana illegal do not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canada's top court has ruled.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled 6-3 Tuesday that jailing someone with small amounts is constitutional and that any changes to the law must be made by Parliament.

Fro the rest of the article:

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/12/23/pot031223

[SlavesandBulldozers]

1. wrong decision

Ashcroft is breathing a sigh of relief right now. American pressure undoubtedly had no small part in the matter. Damn, Canada, you were so close.

And the Drug War rambles on. . .

[frogfromthenorth2]

2. I doubt that....

"American pressure" had anything to do with it... I am not surprised at all by that court's decision. Looking foeard to read the decision. Should be up soon oin their website.

[sexybomber]

4. wait, how is that...

oh. read it wrong. I thought they ruled in favor of decriminalization.

God damn it! :mad:

[Virgil]

3. American pressure had everything to do with it

It has to do with pressure over the decades including using the UN to enforce a planetary prohibition on laughing grass. Decades of demonization and rantings had everything to do with the decision, because if the United States were not the hyper-prohibitionist they are cannabis would have already been legal here and in Canada and there would be no ruling at all.

There is a lot of ignorance on pot. If you followed the cannabis story the one thing you would be wise to is the media. Because there are so many views and reports at DU, the people that read DU and follow the intellectual paths already know the media sucks and they are complicit in furthering officialdom and serve people their daily programming with what is news entertainment.

The biggest news last week was the the government giving Rupert Murdoch his red meat by letting him acquire DirectTV. This is outrageous and the media did not inform the American people of the deal or the implications of such a deal.

There is a total disinformation campaign going on to restore to Residence someone that failed in business, used government powers to enrich himself in building the Houston stadium, was AWOL, a party animal, a failure as a governor, and the worst president ever. Remember the WP survey in September that reported 69% thought that Iraq was involved in 9/11. The only way a falsity like that could be so ingrained is by a huge disinformational campaign just like what we see with all things Nazi/Busch.

Why would people think the economy is improving when manufacturing jobs have declined 40 months in a row. They would have to improve at some time because it cannot go down to zero without interuption. The line has not gone up in 40 months and the population has grown by maybe 10 million.

We are being lied to and lied to continually. The prohibition laws inflict hundreds of times more pain than legal laughing grass ever could. It is that simple. Prohibition is wrong. It is stupid. It is unAmerican. Look at what we should have learned with alcohol. We should have learned, no more prohibition forever. Al Capone's gang would not have a chance in Chicago these days.

Here is the archive of the coverage at pot-tv - http://www.pot-tv.net/ram/pottvshowse2382.ram

[frogfromthenorth2]

5. The reaon why it's a good decision:

"The appellants have assembled much evidence and argument attacking the wisdom of the criminalization of simple possession of marihuana. They say that the line between criminal and non-criminal conduct has been drawn inappropriately and that the evil effects of the law against marihuana outweigh the benefits, if any, associated with its prohibition. These are matters of legitimate controversy, but the outcome of that debate is not for the courts to determine. The Constitution provides no more than a framework. Challenges to the wisdom of a legislative measure within that framework should be addressed to Parliament. Our concern is solely with the issue of constitutionality. We conclude that it is within Parliament's legislative jurisdiction to criminalize the possession of marihuana should it choose to do so. Equally, it is open to Parliament to decriminalize or otherwise modify any aspect of the marihuana laws that it no longer considers to be good public policy."

[Virgil]

6. There are 3 that disagree

What did the three that disagree reason? It is a 480 page decision and it will take some time to figure it out. Here they say the government has the right to inflict more harm than the substance ever could, but this does not mean it is right.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is like our Constitution except it is only 20 years old. Here it gave power to the government and in doing so removed a freedom. I can understand a federal court not wanting to limit the power of the government and I also can see prohibition as the wrong that it is.

The people of Canada, and the US for that matter, are being wronged by prohibition. The elections will come this spring and you can believe it will change the power of the Liberal Party and that the NDP will do well in at least British Columbia.