MAPTalk-Digest Thursday, December 18 2003 Volume 03 : Number 280
001 Reuters Wire: U.S. Appeals Court Sets Aside Federal Marijuana Law
From: Richard Lake <>
002 'Spill-Over: Plan Colombia and U.S. Interests in the Andean Region'
From: "kim hanna" <>
003 Canada: Clay/Caine/Malmo to Be Decided on Dec 23
From: Richard Lake <>
004 Marijuana-grow operations rising: Ont. police
From: Herb <>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: 001 Reuters Wire: U.S. Appeals Court Sets Aside Federal Marijuana Law
From: Richard Lake <>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:01:00 -0500
Newshawk: http://www.ohiopatient.net
Pubdate: Tue, 16 Dec 2003
Source: Reuters (Wire)
Copyright: 2003 Reuters Limited
Author: Adam Tanner
Webpage:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F847B86BCD2AB49488256D
Note: The actual decision is a .pdf document available at the webpage
above, or by going to http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov and click on "opinions"
at the upper left. Then select Raich vs. Ashcroft
Also: To download the major pleadings from the litigation go to
http://raich-v-ashcroft.com and
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/documents/index.html#drugs
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Angel+Raich
U.S. APPEALS COURT SETS ASIDE FEDERAL MARIJUANA LAW
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A federal appeals court allowed two very
sick California women on Tuesday to use marijuana, setting aside
longstanding federal drug laws that bar such cultivation even for
medical purposes.
Growing marijuana for medical purposes is legal in California under a
1996 voter-approved state law, but the measure clashes with federal
law.
Angel Raich, who has an inoperable brain tumor, and Diane Monson, who
suffers from severe back pain, last year sued U.S. Attorney General
John Ashcroft. They sought an injunction against the act, saying the
1970 federal Controlled Substances Act was unconstitutional.
A district court ruled against the women in March, but in a rare
afternoon ruling, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco
reversed the decision.
"We find that the appellants' class of activities -- the intrastate
noncommercial cultivation, possession and use of marijuana for
personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician -- is, in fact,
different in kind from drug trafficking," the three-judge panel ruled.
"Further, the limited medical use of marijuana as recommended by a
physician arguably does not raise the same policy concerns regarding
the spread of drug abuse."
The liberal court, with one judge dissenting, said the Controlled
Substances Act was likely unconstitutional as applied to the women.
"We find that the appellants have made a strong showing of the
likelihood of success on the merits of their case," the decision read.
"We find that the hardship and public interest factors tip sharply in
the appellants' favor."
In his dissent, Judge C. Arlen Beam wrote: "Plaintiffs do not show
there is a threat of future prosecution or a history of past
prosecutions, at least as applied to their unique factual situations.
I would doubt whether anyone can or will seriously argue that the DEA
intends to prosecute these two seriously ill individuals."
The Supreme Court has often overturned the 9th Circuit on cases it has
chosen to review, and lower court decisions on marijuana have
sometimes provoked anger from the Bush administration.
One such instance that irked White House officials involved a federal
judge sentencing "ganja guru" Ed Rosenthal in June to a single day in
jail -- the minimum possible punishment -- for growing marijuana in
violation of federal law.
------------------------------
Subj: 002 'Spill-Over: Plan Colombia and U.S. Interests in the Andean Region'
From: "kim hanna" <>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:01:28 -0800
It’s our best dial-up Internet access offer: 6 months @$9.95/month. Get it
now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Making Contact
a weekly international radio program
http://www.radioproject.org/
"Spill-Over: Plan Colombia and U.S. Interests in the Andean Region"
In 1999 when the mammoth military aid and training package known as Plan
Colombia first came into being, many critics cautioned that more troops,
more helicopters, and more advisers were certain to mean greater U.S.
military involvement in Colombia's decades-old civil conflict. Those
opposed to Plan Colombia made the case that the so-called war on drugs in
that South American country was just a cover for eliminating leftist
guerilla groups. Four years and several billion dollars later, war
continues and the cocaine trade still flourishes. The Bush Administration
and top brass at the Pentagon maintain that Colombia is a top priority not
only to fight drugs but to enhance "national security" in the United States.
Is there more to U.S. policy on Colombia than meets the eye? On this
edition of Making Contact we hear from leaders in Colombian civil society
about what they view as Plan Colombia's broader strategy: regional dominance
by U.S. military and economic interests.
FEATURING: Mennonite pastor Ricardo Esquivia, a peace negotiator; Nancy
Sanchez, a health educator who has worked extensively in the southern
Colombian province of Putumayo; Ricardo Vargas, a drug policy expert with
the non-governmental organization Acción Andina; economist and sociologist
Hector Mondragon, a leading dissident in Colombia.
Listen Real Audio (29:00)
http://www.radioproject.org/sound/031217.ram
Download 128k mp3 (broadcast quality)
http://www.radioproject.org/sound/031217_Ax.mp3
Download 64k mp3 (faster download)
http://www.radioproject.org/sound/031217.mp3
Order CD/Cassette of this show [#51-03]
http://www.radioproject.org/
- ---
Help support the National Radio Project! Your tax-deductible donation helps
us to continue producing quality public affair programs like Making
Contact and training independent journalists and organizers in radio
skills.
***Working Assets Customers can support our work TODAY simply by voting for
the National Radio Project on the Donations Ballot:
http://www.workingassets.com/voting/
Making Contact, a 29-minute public affairs program fed on the public radio
satellite each Wednesday at 12 noon ET, is available free of charge.
Making Contact can be heard around the country on public, community,
internet, and university radio stations. For a list of stations and air
times or for information on how to contact our guests, please visit our
website:
http://www.radioproject.org/
- ---
To unsubscribe from this list, reply to this email
with "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the SUBJECT line.
- ---
- ----------------------------------------------
National Radio Project/Making Contact
1714 Franklin St. #100-251
Oakland, CA 94612
510-251-1332
http://www.radioproject.org/
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Subj: 003 Canada: Clay/Caine/Malmo to Be Decided on Dec 23
From: Richard Lake <>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:17:52 -0500
I hope and pray that the decision will be good.
Probably no other yank has spent more time following this. I made many
trips, more than I can count, from Toledo, Ohio to London, Ontario to meet
with Chris Clay and others to assist first in the fund raising for his
constitutional challenge, and then to the trial, and even after that. I
have spent more time in Canadian court rooms than I ever have in those of
the U.S.
The Affidavits for the Chris Clay trial, which I still consider very
important documents which must weigh heavily on the minds of the judges,
you can see thru this link
http://www.cannabislink.ca/legal/index.htm#affidavits
As I understand it, Supreme Court of Canada decisions are based largely on
the written record of the lower court trials. In my opinion, the effort
that Chris Clay went thru to gather together the superb affidavits the
testamony in court for his trial probably is the most complete analysis by
top recognized authorities of the cannabis issue ever presented in any
court anywhere.
If there are any errors in the text, you can blame me. I OCRed them for
Chris from zeroxed copies and then checked and spell checked them as best
as I could over well over a hundred hours of work - a labor of love. The
affidavits were double spaced typewriter text, not easy for the OCR
software of the time.
The below is from the email list of the Supreme Court of Canada. Note that
the sections of the message in French have been removed, as they did not
process to me in a readable format anyway.
Richard Lake
- ---------------------------------------------
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA -- JUDGMENTS TO BE RENDERED IN APPEALS
OTTAWA, 17/12/03. THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ANNOUNCED TODAY THAT JUDGMENT
IN THE FOLLOWING APPEALS WILL BE DELIVERED AT 9:45 A.M. ON TUESDAY,
DECEMBER 23, 2003.
FROM: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (613) 995-4330
COUR SUPR E DU CANADA -- PROCHAINS JUGEMENTS SUR APPELS
OTTAWA, 17/12/03. LA COUR SUPR E DU CANADA A ANNONC AUJOURD'HUI QUE
JUGEMENT SERA RENDU DANS LES APPELS SUIVANTS LE MARDI 23 D EMBRE 2003, 9 h 45.
SOURCE: COUR SUPR E DU CANADA (613) 995-4330
1.David Malmo-Levine v. Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (B.C.) (28026)
2.Victor Eugene Caine v. Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (B.C.) (28148)
3.Christopher James Clay v. Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (B.C.) (28189)
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
28026David Malmo-Levine v. Her Majesty The Queen
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Section 7 - Narcotic Control Act,
s. 4 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in characterizing the harms that
may come with cannabis use as inherent, instead of a product of
mis-cultivation, mis-distribution and mis-use - Did the Court of Appeal
fail to address the issue of whether the harm principle applies to growers
and dealers of cannabis who arguably play an essential role in cannabis
harm reduction? - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not considering the
principle of equality found in s. 15 of the Charter as it applies to
substance orientation and in not applying equality to every producer and
distributor of stimulants and relaxants, whether bean, grape, herb or
otherwise.
The Appellant was a self-described marihuana / freedom activist. Beginning
in October 1996, he helped operate an organization in East Vancouver known
as the Harm Reduction Club which was a co-operative, non-profit association
of its members. The stated object of the Club was to educate its users and
the general public about marihuana and provide unadulterated marihuana to
its users at Club cost. The Club had approximately 1800 members.
The Club purported to educate its members on a wide variety of safe smoking
habits to minimize any harm from the use of marihuana. Members were
required to sign a pledge not to operate motor vehicles or heavy equipment
while under the influence of the substance.
On December 4, 1996, police entered the premises of the Club and seized 316
grams of marihuana, much of it in the form of joints. The Appellant was
charged with possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking
contrary to s. 4 of the Narcotic Control Act and was convicted. At trial,
the Appellants application to call evidence in constitutional challenge was
dismissed. On appeal, the majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the
appeal. Prowse J.A. dissenting declined to make a finding with respect to
the constitutional validity of s. 4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act. On
March 15, 2001, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was also
granted.
Origin of the case: British Columbia
File No.:28026
Judgment of the Court of Appeal:June 2, 2000
Counsel: David Malmo-Levine/John W. Conroy Q.C. for the Appellant
S.D. Frankel Q.C. for the Respondent
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
28148 Victor Eugene Caine v. Her Majesty The Queen
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Section 7 - Narcotic Control Act,
s. 3(1) - Whether prohibiting possession of Cannabis (marihuana) for
personal use under s. 3(1) of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.
N-1, by reason of the inclusion of this substance in s. 3 of the Schedule
to the Act (now s. 1, Schedule II, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,
S.C. 1996, c. 19), infringes s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms - If the answer is in the affirmative, is the infringement
justified under s. 1 of the Charter? - Whether the prohibition is within
the legislative competence of the Parliament of Canada as being a law
enacted for the peace, order and good government of Canada pursuant to s.
91 of the Constitution Act, 1867; as being enacted pursuant to the criminal
law power in s. 91(27) thereof; or otherwise.
During the late afternoon of June 13, 1993, two R.C.M.P. officers were
patrolling a parking lot at a beach in White Rock, B.C. They observed the
Appellant and a male passenger sitting in a van owned by the
Appellant. The officers observed the Appellant, who was seated in the
drivers seat, start the engine and begin to back up. As one officer
approached the van, he smelled a strong odour of recently smoked marihuana.
The Appellant produced for the officer a partially smoked cigarette of
marihuana which weighed 0.5 grams. He possessed the marihuana cigarette
for his own use and not for any other purpose.
The Appellants application for a declaration that the provisions the
Narcotic Control Act prohibiting the possession of marihuana were
unconstitutional was denied. On appeal, the appeal was dismissed.
Origin of the case: British Columbia
File No.:28148
Judgment of the Court of Appeal:June 2, 2000
Counsel: John W. Conroy Q.C. for the Appellant
S.D. Frankel Q.C. for the Respondent
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
28189 Christopher Clay v. Her Majesty The Queen
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Section 7 - Narcotic Control Act,
s. 3(1) - Whether prohibiting possession of Cannabis (marihuana) for
personal use under s. 3(1) of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.
N-1, by reason of the inclusion of this substance in s. 3 of the Schedule
to the Act (now s. 1, Schedule II, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,
S.C. 1996, c. 19), infringes s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms - If the answer is in the affirmative, is the infringement
justified under s. 1 of the Charter? - Whether the prohibition is within
the legislative competence of the Parliament of Canada as being a law
enacted for the peace, order and good government of Canada pursuant to s.
91 of the Constitution Act, 1867; as being enacted pursuant to the criminal
law power in s. 91(27) thereof; or otherwise.
The Appellant was convicted of possession of cannabis sativa, two counts of
possession of cannabis sativa for the purpose of trafficking and one count
of trafficking in cannabis sativa, contrary to the Narcotic Control Act.
The Appellant challenged the constitutionality of the cannabis prohibitions
in the Narcotic Control Act on the basis that they violated his rights
under s. 7 of the Charter and that the regulation of marijuana was not
within federal jurisdiction. He also argued that the Crown had failed to
prove that the substances seized from him were prohibited narcotics as
defined by the Act. An analyst called by the Crown testified that a
substance certified as cannabis (marijuana) must contain two of four target
cannabinoids and that it is not necessary that one of these be
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. The
analyst could not say that the seized substances contained any THC. The
trial judge dismissed the Appellants constitutional challenge and found
that the Crown had proven the offences. The Appellants appeal from his
convictions was dismissed.
Origin of the case: Ontario
File No.: 28189
Judgment of the Court of Appeal:July 31, 2000
Counsel: Paul Burstein for the Appellant
Morris Pistyner for the Respondent
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Subj: 004 Marijuana-grow operations rising: Ont. police
From: Herb <>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:03:05 -0800
the usual b.s. ...
Marijuana-grow operations rising: Ont. police
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1071675908417_74/?#
------------------------------
End of MAPTalk-Digest V03 #280
******************************
Mark Greer () ___ ___ _ _ _ _
Media Awareness Project /' _ ` _ `\ /'_`)('_`\
P. O. Box 651 | ( ) ( ) |( (_| || (_) )
Porterville, CA 93258 (_) (_) (_) \__,_)| ,__/
(800) 266-5759 | |
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ (_)
|
