Émission de radio L'Autre Monde

Pour écouter, cliquez sur l'image! ..............................................
Suivez aussi L'Autre Monde sur YouTube et sur Twitter

dimanche 22 mars 2009

La marijuana est légale au Canada

.
La marijuana est légale au Canada

Ce n'est pas moi qui le dit, mais bien plusieurs cours de justice canadienne. La loi a été rejetée par la cour parce qu'elle est inconstitutionnelle et le Canada ne l'a jamais modifiées depuis. Dire que les policiers s'en prennent toujours aux fumeurs de marijuana, nous coutant des fortunes pour rien. Maintenant que vous le savez, vous pourrez trainer en cour un policier s'il vous donnait des troubles pour être en possession d'herbe, pour brimer vos droits et libertés. On doit pouvoir être capable d'aller chercher une bonne somme d'argent avec une telle poursuite. Et ça donnera l'exemple aux autres policiers qui ne respectent pas la loi.


Marijuana is legal in Canada again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzYJUIXkl7g





Marijuana is legal ---- The Case Law


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX5kEkGwcmE






Infovid on the lack of marijuana laws in Canada. Come visit and we'll have a high old time.

R vs parker

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/...

Hitzig v. Canada
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/...

R. v. Clarke
http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nspc/doc/...

R. v. J.P
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/...

R v. Masse
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/...

R. v. Graham and Parks
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/...

R. v. J.P
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/...

Hitzig v. Canada
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/...

Queen v. Stavert
http://www.canlii.org/en/pe/pesctd/do...

R. v. Long
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/...

R. v. Long
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/...

Sfetkopoulos v. Canada
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2...




http://www.thepotlawhasfallen.ca/




Background in 2000: judges find the marijuana prohibition defective, and the Government makes a clumsy attempt to repair it with the Medical Marijuana Access Regulations

The case that first struck down the law was won by Terrance Parker, who needed (and needs) marijuana to control his epileptic seizures. Since the law prohibiting marijuana had the effect of violating Parker's Charter right to life, liberty, and security of the person (section 7), the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the law must fall. The Parker judgment specifically refused to resort to the remedy of the trial judge in the first court case, who felt he had to construe a special exception to the prohibition on marijuana.

No, a constructive exception is an arbitrary measure; in the words of Rosenberg J., who wrote the Parker judgment, "I agree with the Crown that this is a matter for Parliament" [11]. This was an impeccably reasoned judgment, not vulnerable to being reversed on appeal, and the Government decided against appealing, which made it final. It was also clearly noted that the ancestor law, the Narcotics Control Act, would have been found unconstitutional if it hadn't been replaced; this means that Canada has never had a marijuana prohibition that is compliant with our Charter and passed by our legislators.

At the end of July 2001, on the day before the law would have fallen into invalidity, the Government announced an abrupt about-face in their marijuana prohibition, and decreed, without public discussion or input, the Medical Marijuana Access Regulations, which provided a poor sort of access to marijuana for sufferers from certain sorts of illnesses.

Although the Parker decision clearly stated "this is a matter for Parliament," successive Liberal and Conservative governments have deliberately kept it away from the House of Commons, where no legislation to replace the prohibition has ever been even moved.

After 2001 August, the Canadian prohibition, if it was based on the prohibition of the struck-down Controlled Drugs and Susbstances Act as propped up by these MMAR, was both formally and materially defective. It was formally defective because mere regulation is never constitutionally adequate to replace Charter-defective legislation; and it was materially defective because it contained many restrictive, arbitrary, and otherwise foolish provisions, especially in eligibility for the MMAR and in access to supply of the therapeutic plant material.

It is because these MMAR were defective in these three ways that Canadian courts of justice finally recognized the invalidity of the prohibition in 2003, and the law collapsed into being a dead letter. More fundamentally, the fact that since the fall of the law Parliament has never been involved in drafting new regulations which means that our marijuana prohibition has zero democratic legitimacy and ought to be repudiated by all Canadians.


Aucun commentaire: