Clarify pot law, cops say.

[Phuz]

I didn't realize how confused everyone was on this. Geez, the gov't needs to make some descisions.

link

Until Ottawa or the courts act, area forces vary in handling pot possession cases.
KELLY PEDRO, Free Press Reporter 2003-06-07 03:44:58

Police in Southwestern Ontario are taking different approaches to enforcing pot possession while they wait for the law to be clarified. The status of the law was thrown in doubt May 16 when a Windsor Superior Court judge ruled simple pot possession is no longer illegal.
The Justice Department has filed a motion in the Ontario Court of Appeal to stay the decision.

Until the courts or Ottawa clarify the law, some police departments say they won't lay charges for possessing less than 30 grams of marijuana.

Police forces across the region are taking different approaches:

- In London, police won't lay charges against people found with less than 30 grams of marijuana. Police will seize the drugs and write up the paperwork, but not process it through the courts.

- In Chatham-Kent, police will arrest and charge people with possession of less than 30 grams, but they have delayed issuing summonses to appear in court for four months. If the law changes, charges will be dropped, police Chief Carl Herder said.

- In Sarnia, it's business as usual with officers using their discretion on whether to lay charges.

- OPP officers will seize marijuana and document the incident, but will not make arrests or lay charges until the law is clarified, a spokesperson said.

"The courts have got to make some decision, but more importantly, the Canadian government is going to have to make it clearer," said Sarnia police Const. George Linton.

This week, Tom Kaye, president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, asked Ontario chiefs to advise officers to use discretion with simple possession charges.

Kaye said police should process anyone found with under 30 grams of marijuana, lock the drugs in a vault, complete the required paperwork and await a decision from the appeals court.

London police Chief Brian Collins said he has asked his officers to do that.

"Where we have evidence of possession, we will not be processing the charges through the courts until such time as the legal issues around the law are cleared up," Collins said yesterday.

But until the law is clarified, Collins said, people shouldn't think they can walk around the city smoking pot.

"They would be very foolish, I would say, as an individual to think that this is some sort of licence now to go out and abuse because it may turn out that they're facing some charges a week or two down the road."

The ambiguity about the status of the law left Collins frustrated yesterday.

He said citizens are getting mixed messages and the federal government is creating "utter confusion."

Collins said he has received calls from Londoners who are angry and confused about what's happening.

"Our leaders in government have an obligation to put resolve to this issue," he said. "The message that's going out is contradictory at best."

The Windsor court decision prompted federal prosecutors in London to stay dozens of charges late last month of possession of less than 30 grams of pot.

That move came a day after the federal government tabled legislation to decriminalize simple pot possession.

 

[hagbard]

The government doesn't want to piss the US administration off by outright legalizing pot. Most Canadians are in favour of at least the near legal positions (far more than what the gov't is proposing). The courts, not being subject to the same political pressures, is basically refusing to go along with a law that violates the individual rights of Canadians. The best solution at this point is for the Supreme Court to throw out the law, and the government NOT to act by creating a new one.

BTW, their is no reason to have a sovereign country if we have to do what the Americans tell us to do. We should tell them to FO regarding their drug war, and all their other wars and develop stronger partnerships with the European countries (except GB under Blair).

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: hagbard
The government doesn't want to piss the US administration off by outright legalizing pot. Most Canadians are in favour of at least the near legal positions (far more than what the gov't is proposing). The courts, not being subject to the same political pressures, is basically refusing to go along with a law that violates the individual rights of Canadians. The best solution at this point is for the Supreme Court to throw out the law, and the government NOT to act by creating a new one.

BTW, their is no reason to have a sovereign country if we have to do what the Americans tell us to do. We should tell them to FO regarding their drug war, and all their other wars and develop stronger partnerships with the European countries (except GB under Blair).

IMO it really is time for the US to reconsider its drug laws regarding marijuana. We are allowing a black market to thrive wherein criminals are making millions and people are being jailed for years for simply smoking pot. The punishment does not fit the crime. The crime shouldn't even be a crime.

There should be no reaction from the US regarding Canada's decision to legalize or decriminalize pot. Our influence on our neighbor's laws should end at our borders.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: nowareman

Originally posted by: hagbard
The government doesn't want to piss the US administration off by outright legalizing pot. Most Canadians are in favour of at least the near legal positions (far more than what the gov't is proposing). The courts, not being subject to the same political pressures, is basically refusing to go along with a law that violates the individual rights of Canadians. The best solution at this point is for the Supreme Court to throw out the law, and the government NOT to act by creating a new one.

BTW, their is no reason to have a sovereign country if we have to do what the Americans tell us to do. We should tell them to FO regarding their drug war, and all their other wars and develop stronger partnerships with the European countries (except GB under Blair).

IMO it really is time for the US to reconsider its drug laws regarding marijuana. We are allowing a black market to thrive wherein criminals are making millions and people are being jailed for years for simply smoking pot. The punishment does not fit the crime. The crime shouldn't even be a crime.

There should be no reaction from the US regarding Canada's decision to legalize or decriminalize pot. Our influence on our neighbor's laws should end at our borders.

I agree totally. Canada wanted to soften laws on pot 30 years ago, but political pressure from Washington shot that down. The biggest problem that Canada has is the trade relationship with the US. Until Canada can either diversify it's trade to Europe and Asia or grow to a large population making trade less important, Canada will be overly influenced by Washington. If I were in charge, I'd be tempted to open the borders to anyone and everyone who wanted to come, a tripling or more of the population would solve a lot of these problems.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

I agree... Especially since even the current level of immigration is slowly but surely changing the balance. If more Europeans (especially Easterners) and Asians come to Canada, the country will become more interested in trading with other partners than the U.S.... the current state of affairs is really sad - Canada relies too much on its trade with teh neighbours south of the border.

 

[Tab]

That is a interesting idea. Some officer finds some stoner kids screwing around in a parking lot. Takes their weed and pipes. Drives them home to their mommie and daddie, but no legal crap to deal with.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: hagbard
The government doesn't want to piss the US administration off by outright legalizing pot. Most Canadians are in favour of at least the near legal positions (far more than what the gov't is proposing). The courts, not being subject to the same political pressures, is basically refusing to go along with a law that violates the individual rights of Canadians. The best solution at this point is for the Supreme Court to throw out the law, and the government NOT to act by creating a new one.

BTW, their is no reason to have a sovereign country if we have to do what the Americans tell us to do. We should tell them to FO regarding their drug war, and all their other wars and develop stronger partnerships with the European countries (except GB under Blair).

Your country tried that already. Continental Europe want's nothing to do with you. But quite frankly you are welcome to try.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: hagbard
The government doesn't want to piss the US administration off by outright legalizing pot. Most Canadians are in favour of at least the near legal positions (far more than what the gov't is proposing). The courts, not being subject to the same political pressures, is basically refusing to go along with a law that violates the individual rights of Canadians. The best solution at this point is for the Supreme Court to throw out the law, and the government NOT to act by creating a new one.

BTW, their is no reason to have a sovereign country if we have to do what the Americans tell us to do. We should tell them to FO regarding their drug war, and all their other wars and develop stronger partnerships with the European countries (except GB under Blair).

Your country tried that already. Continental Europe want's nothing to do with you. But quite frankly you are welcome to try.

It's kind of difficult not to have a relationship with the GB under Blair when the Queen is your Head of State I do see your point though.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Tabb
That is a interesting idea. Some officer finds some stoner kids screwing around in a parking lot. Takes their weed and pipes. Drives them home to their mommie and daddie, but no legal crap to deal with.

That's so un-American.

 

[UltraQuiet]

We should just annex Canada and get it over with. There would be no doubt as to the status of pot, no dispute over soft-wood, we would get most of our oil domesticaly again, the Canadian military would get the funding they so richly deserve and most importantly I WOULD NOT HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY TO FSCKING HALIFAX TO GET A BOTTLE OF ALEXANDER KEITHS INDIA PALE ALE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
We should just annex Canada and get it over with. There would be no doubt as to the status of pot, no dispute over soft-wood, we would get most of our oil domesticaly again, the Canadian military would get the funding they so richly deserve and most importantly I WOULD NOT HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY TO FSCKING HALIFAX TO GET A BOTTLE OF ALEXANDER KEITHS INDIA PALE ALE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Annex at your own risk!

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
We should just annex Canada and get it over with. There would be no doubt as to the status of pot, no dispute over soft-wood, we would get most of our oil domesticaly again, the Canadian military would get the funding they so richly deserve and most importantly I WOULD NOT HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY TO FSCKING HALIFAX TO GET A BOTTLE OF ALEXANDER KEITHS INDIA PALE ALE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Annex at your own risk!

I don't think you realize just how bad I want a bottle of Kieth's.