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.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
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.