sfissel Wrote:Stephen Dame Wrote:Well I'm not in the LSAT club but I've looked at legislative issues around your issue. Sections XII 1. and 2. of the Triple C are a big part of vetting and Charter proofing the legislation. They make indirect reference to the Shanghai sweet grass and other drugs under the "illicit" and "proceeds" sections. Is that what yer after?
How bout the F&DA: "instrument for illicit drug use" means anything designed primarily or intended under the circumstances for consuming or to facilitate the consumption of an illicit drug, but does not include a "device" as that term is defined in section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act;"
So, if you're busted with Hippie Lettuce but can convince the cop your "instrument" is for peeling potato's: yer home free.
But wouldn't the F&DA be outside the CD&SA and still apply? I'm kinda stumped for outside the CD&SA unless we're talking about shipping kilo's of horse tranq to Bolivia... which reminds me... I gotta stop by the Post Office.
Yeah, I read that stuff on instruments for ilicit drug use, it certainly pertains to marijuana in general, but I think that possession is a seperate issue from the instruments used. (also, I don't think you can really get busted for instrumentation since every device that you might use for [insert clever allusion to pot here] can be legally used for the consumption of tobacco)
Maybe the criminal code is relevant just insofar as it refers to the controlled substances act? I'm not too sure.
The court cases I've looked at all seem to refer exclusively to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (well, that and the charter of rights).
I guess the solution is to just read the whole damned criminal code? I think I'd rather fail my paper. It feels like our criminal code was written, then translated into higher german by a first year german class, then translated back into english by some kind of free web service, then passed as law.
I think I've ruled out law school as a possible career path.
Thanks Stephen,
Steve(n)
There's some academic work out there about applying the Charter to pot laws, especially posession. Conviction for posession of an illegal substance treads the line of presuming guilt, since just because you have it doesn't mean you're going to sell it or do anything illegal with it. Or so goes the logic. The problem arises when, in order for it to be a Charter case, you have to prove that a prohibition on pot violates your inviolable rights.
It's kinda out there, but there's probably a paper in applying the individual rights and freedom of expression (maybe even religion) aspects of the Charter to any form of prohibition, drugs included. How can something be illegal when it harms no one but yourself and may even contribute to your quality of life. This starts to fall apart with hard drugs and organized crime come into the picture, but with a plant you can grow in your basement it's still somewhat plausible.
Flin-Flon will undoubtedly play a role in any future pot debates since it's such obvious logic: "So, the government has taken it upon itself to grow and distribute this stuff because they feel it is valuable, even essential, to people with certain ailments, and yet I could have a criminal record if they find a joint in my bags at Pearson?"
I've always felt that keeping pot illegal allows it (a relatively harmless drug) to serve as the forbidden fruit. What will kids turn to when even Grampa smokes dope and there's nothing cool about it anymore? But the criminal record for possession doesn't make any sense, and I think the legislation last year was just plain common sense... you could write a paper about spineless politicians ignoring the obvious "what is" for some odd "what should be"
