>From: medpot
>Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005
>Website: http://www.rockyviewweekly.awna.com/

THE SO-CALLED MARIJUANA "DECRIMINALIZATION" BILL IS COMING
SOON
Author: Russell Barth

RB: Dear Editor:
Now that the same sex marriage issue has been settled ( more
or less ), the Liberals will probably want to push forward
with their alternative penalty legislation regarding
marijuana, or as they keep erroneously calling it
"decriminalization". The problems with this new legislation
are many. The fact that the proposed fines are lower for
youths than for adults suggests that the Liberals think that
it is okay for kids to use pot.

JCT: I think it's okay for kids to use pot, preferably
muffins rather than Prozac and Ritalin.

RB: Most Canadians think that cannabis should be regulated
so that it's use is restricted to adults.

JCT: I don't.

RB: Legalization and regulation would accomplish that, the
Liberal's proposed legislation would actually make it EASIER
for kids to access cannabis.

JCT: That's his case? I like it. And he's against that?

RB: The proposed legislation would increase the penalty for
growing to an astonishing 14 years!

JCT: The name of the game is "Cops and gardeners." With big
sentences, we get big criminals.

RB: Rape, armed robbery, aggravated assault, even incest
will draw a lesser penalty. Karla Homolka only got 12 years,
and she will be free soon. This new sentencing policy will
scare off the "mom `n pop" growers, and hand exclusive
growing rights to those people who are rich, crazy, brave,
or heavily armed enough to take a risk that big ( "organized
crime" ).

JCT: Like the guy who blew away the 4 RCMP when they found
his life-sentence grow-op. If he'd know that Krieger had
struck down the law, he's probably have given up on the
stolen goods charge. The Calgary Herald's Daryl Slade sure
has their blood all over himself for having suppressed and
distorted the nature of the Krieger win because, as Crown
Attorney David Frankel said, he too cover in gore, "as
matters stand, the cultivation s.7 has been declared of no
force and effect by the highest court in Alberta." The cops
were killed in Alberta where, for sure, Krieger had
invalidated the marijuana cultivation prohibition.

RB: Canadians already spend about $2 billion annually in the
War On Certain Drugs on enforcement, courts, incarceration,
and corrections - and we have nothing to show for it but a
bigger and more dangerous black market than ever in the
history of Canada. The Liberals want to spend even more
taxpayer's dollars on this absurd and failing policy. The
Senate Committee Report on drugs from 2002 suggested the
government fully legalize and regulate cannabis, generate
billions in tax revenue, correctional resources on more
important issues. The Fraser Institute crunched the numbers,
and estimated our domestic cannabis market could raise $3
billion annually in tax revenue. The tax revenue from this
market could save our ailing beef farmers, boost our
military, and increase healthcare and educational funding.

JCT: We've been hearing these arguments since LeDain. And
still the government continues its hidden agenda.

RB: In the spring of 2003, the law prohibiting the
possession of cannabis was found by an Ontario Superior
Court Judge to be "of no force and effect".

JCT: Since Terry Parker Day Aug. 1 2001. This distorts the
story and makes it sound like one little judge "found it to
be of no force and effect in 2003. All the 4000 charges I
made the government stay had been laid between Aug. 1 2001
and Oct 7 2003. That's 26 months. Barth's article furthers
the Marc Emery spiel that the window of legality started
when it was found in 2003 and not when the law died in 2001,
that it was only Emery's "summer" of legalisation rather
than Turmel's "two-years."

RB: This was later overturned on appeal,

JCT: Was the ruling that the law had been abrogated ever
overturned as Russell Barth tells us? No, it was not. The
reasons for the ruling were overturned but not the Terry
Parker Day ruling. All those 4000 charges were dropped in
December 2003, after the ruling that "overturned" the
ruling. So the ruling that the law had been abrogated could
not have been overturned.

The explanation for Barth's error is that just as I had
argued that the law had died on Terry Parker Day because the
MMAR had not worked to save the CDSA, the Windsor case had
Justice Rogin conclude that the law had died on Terry Parker
Day because the MMAR had not been legislated right. Not
because the MMAR had not worked. Parker had proven that when
Justice Pitt March 15 2002 concluded that the MMAR had
failed to comply with the court's ruling in Parker.

So the Ontario Court of Appeal finally ruled that the Rogin
reason was wrong, that the government had the power to enact
the MMAR in the way that they had, but that the Turmel
reason was right, that the MMAR had failed to work, so
though J.P. in Windsor lost his appeal argument, he still
got off when the Court admitted the law died on Terry
Parker Day!
Notice that though Terry Parker had asked to have the law
declared invalid on Terry Parker Day, Doherty, Goudge,
Simmons JJ.A. dismissed his motion but admitted he was right
in the J.P. and Hitzig decisions who had not asked!

Still, what can I say about a prolific medpot writer who
hasn't got the medpot timeline right leading the charge?
Can't he read?

RB: but in Canada, a law must be legislated back into
existence, it cannot be resurrected by another court.

JCT: If the Windsor ruling that the law had died was
overturned as he says, then the law had not died and does
not need to be re-legislated back into existence. Right?
Russell says the ruling declaring the law invalid was
overturned. So it's still there if the judge was wrong. So
Barth admits the ruling that the law had died was not
overturned if it has to be re-legislated back into life
right after stating that it had been overturned. Talk about
a blaring contradiction.

RB: As a result, the police are still enforcing laws that
technically don't really exist any more.

JCT: So he makes my point but with the wrong reasons. Where
have we seen that tactic before? Oh, right. The Windsor case
made my point that the law was dead on Terry Parker Day but
with the wrong reasons. If I hadn't appealed our losses
despite the Windsor win, then JP would have lost later and
no one would have proven the Terry Parker Day invalidation
because the Windsor case did not make that argument. We did.

RB: Health Canada's Medical Marijuana Access program
recently released their new regulations, and they still
failed to comply with a number of court orders. This also
puts the laws prohibiting cannabis on very shaky ground.

JCT: Shaky? Absent a constitutionally valid exemption, the
prohibition is invalid ruled the Court of Appeal. Once they
re-attached the unconstitutional conditions making the
exemption invalid again, it made the prohibition invalid
again as of Dec. 8 2003. I wonder why he hints at it but
does not explain one of our major Aces that even if the
courts could resurrect the law, it was only for 2 months u
until they absented the valid exemption again!

RB: By not fully legalizing and regulating the cannabis
market, our government is knowingly subsidizing organized
crime to the tune of about $10 billion, wasting valuable
police resources, making pot easier for kids to access than
either tobacco or alcohol, wasting billions annually in
taxpayers funds, withholding billions more in potential
annual tax revenue, withholding a valuable source of
medicine from sick and dying Canadians, and endangering
every citizen in the country. It leads me to wonder just
which side of the law they are really on. Russell Barth
Educators For Sensible Drug Policy Ottawa

JCT: Sure, we've heard all the great arguments pointing out
the imbecilities of prohibition before. But there was lots
of disinformation and out and out error that went with it.


--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics