Dave_Schuldt Posted December 23, 2003 Posted December 23, 2003 AWSOME!!!! What's the latest up there? Do they have the balls to stand up to Bush? Quote
murraysovereign Posted December 23, 2003 Posted December 23, 2003 The latest is that a case was before the Supreme Court, in which three people were appealing their convictions on the grounds that the possession laws violated their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (constitutional guarantees similar to your Bill of Rights). The court ruled that the present laws are not unconstitutional, so they still stand. However, the police and lower courts have all but stopped enforcing the law. So we're still in a bit of a legal no-man's land. But the Martin government is apparently going to be introducing legislation early in the New Year that would greatly reduce the penalties for simple possession, effectively decriminalizing it, but not really. To paraphrase a past Prime Minister: "Decriminalization if necessary, but not necessarily decriminalization." Â Hope that helps to muddify the fuzzification. Quote
scott_harpell Posted December 23, 2003 Author Posted December 23, 2003 baisically, i hope it stays illegal. I would rather just have the cop throw my stash in the garbage (so i can later retreive it) than to get a $210 fine and get it confiscated. for all intensive purposes, it is legal (i think) but i suppose you can get the wrong cop on the wrong day and get hosed. Quote
murraysovereign Posted December 23, 2003 Posted December 23, 2003 I think what you'll see under the new legislation is that the authorities will still basically ignore it, unless you're really being flagrant and stupid about it somehow. The biggest problem with the present situation is that a highly visible section of the Criminal Code is being routinely flouted, and everyone knows it, and no-one is going to do anything about it, and everyone knows that no-one is going to do anything about it. If that situation is allowed to continue, it can spill over into other areas, and undermine the legitimacy of the entire justice system. So rather than having police and courts routinely ignoring criminal offenses, it's better to down-grade the offence, so you just have police and courts ignoring minor offences. The consequences for the administration of justice are less serious that way, but you still don't have to take the politically risky step of out-right legalizing anything. Quote
murraysovereign Posted December 24, 2003 Posted December 24, 2003 "for all intents and purposes" Â No, I think he meant to say "for all intensive purposes." That way the casual user isn't affected, just the really hard core guys. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.