Northern Weed

|

Canada's Supreme Court has rejected the claim that banning marijuana possession violates that nation's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The plaintiffs had argued that the charter requires the government to demonstrate harm to third parties before criminalizing an activity. On the brighter side, Prime Minister Paul Martin plans to reintroduce a bill that would eliminate the possibility of jail time for possessing small amounts of pot, insteading imposing a modest fine.

A dozen U.S. states have the same policy. But as the Drug Reform Coordination Network's Phillip Smith notes in his handy guide to Canada's marijuana debate, that fact has not stopped federal drug warriors from popping a vein over the prospect of decriminalization in Canada.

NEXT: Cop blogger gone wild

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Despite the fact that pot decriminalization would be a good policy, why would it be a good thing if the Candian Supreme Court were to read it into the Charter? It says nothing of the kind and freedom in the long run cannot be protected by lawless courts.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.