TURMEL: Parliament fails to enact new prohibition

JCT: Phew. No new marijuana prohition from Parliament this 
week. Now there all sorts of reasons for delays even if I'm 
hoping that the real reason is the Ontario Medical 
Association letter at the base of the Pitt decision that the 
MMAR had failed to comply with the court's ruling is still a 
sword of Damocles hanging over their head. Unfortunately, 
too many people think that the minor concessions made by the 
government make it worth supporting the bill when the whole 
concession to legalisation is still the goal. 

>Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 07:11:22 -0800
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael)
>Subject: [MedPot-discuss] Not likely
>http://canadaeast.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031104/CPN/15947019
 
Cauchon hoping new Martin government will resurrect pot bill
JIM BROWN
 
JB: OTTAWA (CP) - Justice Minister Martin Cauchon admitted 
Tuesday his landmark bill to decriminalize marijuana 
possession may not pass this fall, but he expressed hope 
that new prime minister Paul Martin will continue process 
when he takes power.

JCT: That's what I'm worried about. I'm happy the bill 
didn't pass. Now there's only a dead law and a bunch of 
robed shamans who think they've brought it back to life. A 
much easier fight that had they brought a new law to life. 
 
JB: "I'm fundamentally convinced the next government would 
take up this bill again," Cauchon said outside a cabinet 
meeting. "It's an important bill.... We've talked about all 
this for nearly a decade now." The legislation would 
eliminate jail time and criminal records for simple 
possession of small amounts of pot, replacing the current 
legal regime with citations and fines that would work 
something like traffic tickets. It would toughen penalties 
for marijuana grow operations and maintain stiff sentences 
for trafficking.

JCT: No thanks. No one does jail time and many get absolute 
discharges with no criminal records for small amounts 
anyway and doubling the penalties on everything else isn't 
worth no change on this. 

JB: Cauchon continued to hold out a slim chance Tuesday that 
the initiative could become law before Prime Minister Jean 
Chretien leaves office, insisting that "we're doing all we 
can to ensure it will pass as quickly as possible." He 
acknowledged, however, that Chretien could cut the current 
parliamentary session short, clearing the way for Martin to 
make a fresh start once he takes over.

JCT: But no one says Martin doesn't have to bring in a new 
prohibition.

JB: Cauchon suggested that, in such a case, at least some of 
the legislative work would be done and the new leader would 
not have to start from scratch.

JCT: Some?
 
JB: There was no immediate word from Martin's spokesmen on 
whether he would indeed resurrect the marijuana bill.

JCT: At least they're not bringing it in now. The only 
thing standing between us and legalisation is a dead law 
propped up by 3 out-of-control judges. 

JB: Martin has said he favours decriminalization in 
principle, but has also indicated he is sensitive to 
opposing views expressed by some Liberal backbenchers. 

JCT: So when the old law is officially admitted dead, he'll 
be in favor of bringing in a new one, you'll see. 

JB: Cauchon, in an effort to win over the caucus dissidents, 
has put out word that he is willing to consider some changes 
to the legislation. "We've never pretended the bill was 
perfect," he said. "I'm open to listen to the different 
amendments that might be proposed." Sources say the justice 
minister is flexible on at least three major points:  

-Lowering the limit for non-criminal possession to 10 grams 
of marijuana, down from the 15 initially proposed.

JCT: A major concession to the prohibitionists. 

-Increasing the fines for repeat offenders. The original 
bill set out a scale of fines ranging from $100 to $400, 
depending on the exact nature of the offence and whether the 
offender was a juvenile or adult.

JCT: Another major concession to the prohibitionists. 

-Amending the bill to ensure that illicit marijuana growers 
would do jail time and not be let off with conditional 
sentences. The bill already doubles the maximum penalty for 
grow operations to 14 years from the current seven, but 
critics complain judges rarely impose the maximum and too 
often let  off with probation or community service.

JCT: It's always concession to the prohibitionists. 

JB: The legislation is currently before a Commons committee 
that was expected to hear its last witnesses Tuesday 
evening. The committee will debate amendments next, and 
could send the bill back to the full Commons before the end 
of the week. It's unlikely, however, that it can pass the 
House by Friday, when MPs are scheduled to take a one-week 
break. The Senate would also have to give its approval to 
make the bill law.

JCT: So when they come back, they can bring back prohibition 
too. 
 
JB: During next week's recess Martin will be officially 
confirmed as Liberal leader by a party convention. Chretien 
is widely expected to put an end to the parliamentary 
session after that, to avoid returning to the House as a 
lame duck.

JCT: I haven't picked on Paul Martin yet and I'm happy that 
he'll be the one who bring in the new prohibition of anti-
seizure epilepsy medicine so I'll be able to hold him 
responsible. Jean, once gone, would have been a far less 
inviding foil for my abolitionist barbs. 

>Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 04:48:34 +0000
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (globaldream88)
>Subject: [MedPot-discuss] Bill c-38 finalized in the 
>activist forum at cc. summary is below my note here.
 
GD: Hello folks, The bill goes to parliament floor on thurs. 
It's very unlikely it will be voted while Chretien is 
leader, as they would have to vote on it by Friday. if it 
squeaks in, which is highly doubtful, and passes, it still 
has to get thru the Senate. The senate is bogged down with 
many bill,so if it gets to Senate, it may die there. Anyhow, 
we all know this bill isn't legalization, But, Parliament 
has never come this far before on this issue.

JCT: "This far?" You want this new prohibition? Instead of 
believing that the court couldn't do what they did and there 
is no prohibition? You want this new prohibition? 

GD: Bill is same as it was with 2 important points.
1. No minimum sentencing, which some cops wanted.
2.Home cultivation of 3 plants per person in a household 
within the ticketing regimen. $250 fine for youth and a $500 
fine for adults. Previously, the bill had up to 1 year in 
jail and up to $1,000. fine for 1-3 plants. (obvious probem 
is what happens when your plants yield more than their 15 
gram minimum.) Again, it's Not even close to Full 
Legalization, but a bit of new ground for this country, 
nonetheless, even if it don't become Law. Global Dream

JCT: And he thinks this beats "no prohibition" because the 
court did not bring it back to life. 

GD: quick summary from cc poster; guardian99
for now the main points are as follows:
- Bill C38 is NOT law yet
- Bill C38 was amended tonight
- Many proposed amendments (including many by the NDP) were 
shot down, including an NDP proposal to raise the non-
discretionary ticketable amount from 0 to 15 to 0 to 30, a 
CA proposal to lessen this amount to 0 to 5, and a PC 
amendment to introduce stiffer fines for second or repeat 
offences.
- While the night feature 5 to 6 hours of amendments being 
explained away or being shot down, there was one consensus 
which was reached that was in our favor. There were three 
proposed amendments to adjust personal cultivation laws. NDP 
wanted 5 plants or under with a $100 fine for youth and a 
$150 for adults. BQ wanted 3 plants or under, with a $200 
fine for youth and $300 for adults.
The Liberal amendment called for 3 plants or under (notice 
no limit on size, quanity or yield!) with a $250 fine for 
youth and a $500 fine for adults. (The government helpfully 
also pointed out that this was 3 plants PER PERSON, so in a 
house with four residents 12 plants could be grown, etc!)

JCT: "12 could be grown" to only get four $500 fines. 

GD: The liberal amendment passed after everyone got on 
board, and Bill C38 if passed will decriminalize (removes 
criminal penalty) for the simple cultivation of 3 plants or 
less for personal use. 

JCT: But it still lets cops bust into your home. Great. 

GD: If caught (no idea how you would get caught or how they 
would get a warrant to give you a ticket lol) but anways, if 
caught, you'd only get a fine!

JCT: Better but not best. 

GD: - The other key amendment was a review clause which was 
adopted. It states that 3 years after Bill C38 is passed (if 
it is) the solicitor general will apoint a person or persons 
to review the impact of Bill C38 on Canadian society. (which 
is great because if nothing goes wrong or things improve it 
paves the way for further liberalization and another step 
down the road of reform of marijuana prohibition laws).

JCT: We'll be getting to where we just were. 
====

>From: geistrausch  journeyman  
>Re: Canadian Commons Committee Finishes Bill 38  
>Date: Wed Nov 05 2003 09:03 PM

G: The amendment to include three plants is an intelligent 
informed decision in the context of decriminalization. It 
sends a clear message to the police that personal use, 
although sanctioned, cannot be dealt with by the force of 
the criminal law. Ok. 

HOWEVER OVER 60% OF THE SUBMISSIONS TO THE COMMITTEE 
RECOMMENDED LEGALIZATION. Why does the committee ignore its 
own testimony? Why does the committee ignore the senate 
report? Will Paul Martin prorogue parliment and Kill the 
bill, even if it is in the senate? Will he chose to revive 
it next spring?

JCT: I'm in favor of the law remaining invalid like it is 
now. I can live with guys who have no power saying they're 
enacting new legislation but I'm worried about the guys with 
the power to enact new law doing it. 

G: Based on public statements and Testimony by the 
individuals and organizations that have or will be 
presenting to the house of commons SNUD committee, here are 
my conclusions:

60% of the witnesses believe that this is bad bill because 
it does not go far enough and we should simply legalize 
marijuana. 60% of the witnesses testified that marijuana 
should be legalized.

25% of the witnesses, (all attached to, and employed by the 
justice department), support the proposed decriminalization 
bill.

JCT: All the prohibitionists support the bill. Think about 
that. The media spin is that they're all against it and yet 
they're all really for it. 

G: Only 15% of the witnesses support increased penalties and 
a criminal environment for simple possession of marijuana. 
They do agree that under an "unspecified" set of 
circumstances, they would consider decriminalization. (ie: 
the ability to do "on the spot drug testing" on citizens 
without arrest and a search warrant).

Will the committee listen to the majority of the witness and 
their concerns in their consideration of the proposed Bill? 

JCT: Does reading the legislation sound like they did? 

G: Will the committee legalize marijuana, as the majority of 
their invited expert witnesses advocated?

JCT: Does reading the legislation sound like they did? 

G: 11 groups believe that the proposed bill is inadequate 
because it does not go far enough. They recommend the 
abolishment of cannabis prohibition and the creation of a 
regulated, legalized environment for cannabis cultivation, 
possession and distribution.

The Canadian Justice Minister and his Staff believe that it 
is a good bill and that Canada should decriminalize the 
simple possession of marijuana. The Canadian Justice 
Minister and his staff believe that their bill is just fine.

Only 3 groups oppose decriminalization (The police union, 
MADD, and a single retired doctor. It is interesting to note 
that Dr. Kalant is funded through the National Institute on 
Drug Abuse (NIDA), an American drug abuse research 
institution that has been widely criticized for its 
prohibitionist politics.

JCT: Most support it but the police union does not? 

G: SUPPORT DECRIMINALIZATION:
Martin Cauchon, Minister of Justice
House of Commons

Department of Justice 
Richard G. Mosley, Assistant Deputy Minister 

JCT: Funny how paths cross. Richard Mosley was my first
prosecutor for gambling back in 1977 before Judge Sherwood. 
We also fought a bank case in Federal court in the 1980s. 

G: Criminal Law Policy Section
Paul Saint-Denis, Senior Counsel
Criminal Law Policy Section

Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police

National Police Services of the RCMP :
Pierre Lavoie, Officer in Charge of the CPIC Program Policy
Canadian Police Information Centre
Robert Thompson, Acting Officer in Charge
Canadian Criminal Records Information Services

Royal Canadian Mounted Police :
Garry Loeppky, Deputy Commissioner Operations

SUPPORT INCREASED CRIMINAL SANCTIONS: 
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)

JCT: What are a bunch of ditzy mothers righteously against 
alcohol impairment doing speaking in complete ignorance 
about cannabis enhancement? Makes them seem quite 
incompetent but controlling their organization lets 
prohibitionists sell this spin. If these mothers know what 
they're talking about with alcohol, they must know what 
they're talking about with cannabis. Not. 

Canadian Professional Police Association (Police Union)

Harold Kalant, Professor Emeritus (retired)
Department of Pharmacology, University of Toronto

SUPPORT OF LEGALIZATION (Not Weak Decrim):

Neil Boyd
Professor of Criminology
Simon Fraser University

Line Beauchesne, Associate Professor, 
Department of Criminology
University of Ottawa

Patricia Begin, 
Director
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse: Policy and Research

Michel Perron, 
Chief Executive Officer
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse: 

Dr. Patricia Erickson
Addiction Research Foundation.

Kirk Tousaw, Policy Director .
BC Civil Liberties Association:

John Conroy, Attorney
Conroy & Company

Mark Lapowich, Member .
Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers:

Paul Burstein, Director
Criminal Lawyers Association:.

Philippe Lucas, Director
Canadian for safe access 

Marc Boris Saint-Maurice, Federal Leader
Marijuana Party of Canada

The critical question is this:

Why has the SNUD committee failed to address the core 
findings and recommendations of the Senate Committees 
report? The proposed bill does not even go so far as to 
implement the LeDain committee's findings 30 YEARS ago. 

JCT: Why is everyone accepting that prohibition is still 
alive is a bigger one. We won it all and yet the government 
are admitting their losses only little by little. 

I'm still feeling better now that no new prohibition has 
been enacted. Now is actually the best time to stick it in 
their faces. If I could, I'd be in front of the court at 
Osgoode Hall smoking a joint and laughing at judges who 
think they have the same power to enact new law as 
Parliament. 

Actually, the very next person charged should make the 
motion that the law is still invalid because the court was 
right to admit it died Terry Parker Day but was wrong to 
think they had the power to bring it back to life. 

Now's the time for Marc Emery to come to Toronto to flaunt 
his joint. Now's when it can count to get the message out 
that the law ain't back alive. 

Unless his role to help the government spin is to party 
while it's invalid and then stop when they judges said it's 
alive again. If everyone else is helping the spin that the 
law's back alive, this is Emery's chance to counter it that 
the law is still dead. 

If not, I'll find someone else to engineer a court challenge 
for under any new charge after Oct. 7 under the same old 
invalid-once invalid-forever law. But it was a week fraught 
with stress alleviated now that there is no new laughing 
grass prohibition legislated by Parliament for me to deal 
with. 
--
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 519-756-1325 USENET: can.politics