OTTAWA - The Supreme Court of Canada refused to elevate marijuana smoking to a constitutional right yesterday in a ruling that allows Parliament to criminalize any behaviour it sees fit to protect people from harm.
"There is no free-standing constitutional right to smoke 'pot' for recreational purposes," justices Ian Binnie and recently retired Charles Gonthier wrote in the 6-3 decision.
The majority, in upholding the current law, rejected the arguments advanced by three B.C. marijuana enthusiasts, who claimed it breaches the Charter of Rights to threaten someone with a criminal record for what they contend is a victimless crime.
It was the Supreme Court's first test of the 80-year-old prohibition on pot possession and the majority sided with the government on every point, saying any change in the law is up to federal politicians.
"It is open to Parliament to decriminalize or otherwise modify any aspect of the marijuana laws that it no longer considers to be good public policy," said the 82-page majority decision.
David-Malmo Levine, who heard the verdict while smoking marijuana with "about 20 of my closest pot activist pals" at the B.C. Marijuana Party headquarters, said the judges fell down on the job of getting rid of an outdated law.
"It's horrible. It's a dark day for humanity, it's a dark day for Canadians; it means that harmless people are not protected by our Constitution," said the 32-year-old Vancouverite, who began his legal fight after police shut down his "harm reduction club" seven years ago.
The ruling eases pressure on Paul Martin, the Prime Minister, to follow through on a promise last week to revive a bill that would make possession of small amounts of marijuana a ticketable offence rather than a criminal one, said Alan Young, a lawyer in the case.
"Paul Martin is sitting in a different world going into 2004," said Mr. Young, a professor at York University's Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto.
"There is no pressure coming from the courts to change the law and, in fact, there's pressure coming from the Americans to preserve the law. You tell me how strong is Mr. Martin, and does he have the political will. I suspect not."
Mr. Young represented Chris Clay, a 32-year-old Victoria web-page designer who owned the Great Canadian Hemporium marijuana paraphernalia and seed store in London, Ont. The other litigant was Victor Caine, who was convicted of possession for sharing a joint with a friend in his car while parked at a beach near Vancouver.
The U.S. drug czar yesterday praised Mr. Martin for announcing plans to crack down on marijuana growers and repeat users when he reintroduces the government's pot bill.
"I have been encouraged because of the statements he has made about marijuana being a serious drug," John Walters said in an interview. "He has made an effort to show a recognition that he does not side with those who say this is a soft drug, or that this is something you don't have to pay attention to."
Mr. Walters, director of the White House Office of Drug Control Policy, became a harsh critic of the Jean Chrétien government when it announced plans to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana.
The Supreme Court decision yesterday rejected the pot-supporters' argument that lawmakers should have to demonstrate a serious risk of harm to marijuana users to justify criminal sanctions.
The government passed the test by showing the health risks are not "insignificant or trivial," concluded the court's majority.
"Chronic users may suffer serious health problems. Vulnerable groups are at a particular risk, including adolescents with a history of poor school performance, pregnant women and persons with pre-existing conditions such as cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, schizophrenia, or other drug dependencies," wrote the court, citing studies.
The trio of marijuana users failed to convince the court that control over pot possession is outside federal jurisdiction because provinces are responsible for health, that it is unfair to target marijuana when alcohol and cigarettes are legal, and that pot prohibition discriminates against people because of their "substance orientation."
http://canada.com
"There is no free-standing constitutional right to smoke 'pot' for recreational purposes," justices Ian Binnie and recently retired Charles Gonthier wrote in the 6-3 decision.
The majority, in upholding the current law, rejected the arguments advanced by three B.C. marijuana enthusiasts, who claimed it breaches the Charter of Rights to threaten someone with a criminal record for what they contend is a victimless crime.
It was the Supreme Court's first test of the 80-year-old prohibition on pot possession and the majority sided with the government on every point, saying any change in the law is up to federal politicians.
"It is open to Parliament to decriminalize or otherwise modify any aspect of the marijuana laws that it no longer considers to be good public policy," said the 82-page majority decision.
David-Malmo Levine, who heard the verdict while smoking marijuana with "about 20 of my closest pot activist pals" at the B.C. Marijuana Party headquarters, said the judges fell down on the job of getting rid of an outdated law.
"It's horrible. It's a dark day for humanity, it's a dark day for Canadians; it means that harmless people are not protected by our Constitution," said the 32-year-old Vancouverite, who began his legal fight after police shut down his "harm reduction club" seven years ago.
The ruling eases pressure on Paul Martin, the Prime Minister, to follow through on a promise last week to revive a bill that would make possession of small amounts of marijuana a ticketable offence rather than a criminal one, said Alan Young, a lawyer in the case.
"Paul Martin is sitting in a different world going into 2004," said Mr. Young, a professor at York University's Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto.
"There is no pressure coming from the courts to change the law and, in fact, there's pressure coming from the Americans to preserve the law. You tell me how strong is Mr. Martin, and does he have the political will. I suspect not."
Mr. Young represented Chris Clay, a 32-year-old Victoria web-page designer who owned the Great Canadian Hemporium marijuana paraphernalia and seed store in London, Ont. The other litigant was Victor Caine, who was convicted of possession for sharing a joint with a friend in his car while parked at a beach near Vancouver.
The U.S. drug czar yesterday praised Mr. Martin for announcing plans to crack down on marijuana growers and repeat users when he reintroduces the government's pot bill.
"I have been encouraged because of the statements he has made about marijuana being a serious drug," John Walters said in an interview. "He has made an effort to show a recognition that he does not side with those who say this is a soft drug, or that this is something you don't have to pay attention to."
Mr. Walters, director of the White House Office of Drug Control Policy, became a harsh critic of the Jean Chrétien government when it announced plans to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana.
The Supreme Court decision yesterday rejected the pot-supporters' argument that lawmakers should have to demonstrate a serious risk of harm to marijuana users to justify criminal sanctions.
The government passed the test by showing the health risks are not "insignificant or trivial," concluded the court's majority.
"Chronic users may suffer serious health problems. Vulnerable groups are at a particular risk, including adolescents with a history of poor school performance, pregnant women and persons with pre-existing conditions such as cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, schizophrenia, or other drug dependencies," wrote the court, citing studies.
The trio of marijuana users failed to convince the court that control over pot possession is outside federal jurisdiction because provinces are responsible for health, that it is unfair to target marijuana when alcohol and cigarettes are legal, and that pot prohibition discriminates against people because of their "substance orientation."
http://canada.com
