Between 2003 and 2010 there was no legitimate law against Marijuana in the CDSA

[apartmentblower]

It sounds crazy, doesn't it? Do you want to learn more?

I'll use this thread to post why between 2003 - 2010 there were extended periods of time within which the CDSA as applying to "marihuana" was deemed of no force and effect. And technically, still isn't.


I know of people who have beaten their charges without lawyers and some who have had their marijuana and grow equipment returned when they threatened to file constitutional challenges that would have proved the above. In fact, all of these people would have taken plea bargains and been given criminal records if it were up to their lawyers. It is all real shady stuff and it is the first step in seeing that there are many many many deep rooted issues within law and order in Canada.

 

[apartmentblower]

Ok, here is the first little bit of info. All credit goes to John Turmel and his POLCOA (Parliament only legislates, courts only abrogate). He is the mastermind and the ones that fought after him also deserve credit for putting their necks out on the line to prove what they knew was right all along.

I will do my best to clarify the legalese and any confusion that may arise to help everyone understand. The info I'm posting is copied from documents created by JT as well as other discussions. I'm merely using them to help explain the position, I'm not taking any credit for the content because I did not do the work.

 

[apartmentblower]

1) Parliament has not re-enacted the S.7 cultivation and S.4 possession prohibitions which underpin all other marijuana prohibitions in the CDSA since they were struck down by the Ontario and Alberta Courts of Appeal; POLCOA, Parliament Only Legislates, Courts Only Abrogate; or

2) if the prohibitions were somehow resurrected without Parliament, the Sfetkopoulos and Beren decisions create a similar period of retrospective invalidity between Dec 3 2003, the date that s.41(b.1) and 54 were re-introduced into the MMAR and Mar 4 2010, the date the MMAR were constitutionally rectified by the decision in Beren just like the Court in R. v. J.P.'s ruling that the combined effect of Parker and Hitzig meant there was no constitutionally valid marijuana possession offence between July 31 2001 and Oct 7 2003, the date the MMAR were constitutionally rectified by the decision in Hitzig.

 

[dmt]

guess you dont remember when marc emery was smoking outside that morning saying pot was legal in canada? d

 

[deepcover]

preach son

 

[deepcover]

people need to read this shit

 

[hippydan]

I've read the thread three times now and still have no idea what I'm reading.

 

[Moots]

This is especially true in Ontario.

Pot is technically legal in Ontario. R. v. Parker (2000), R. v. Long(2007), R. v. Bodnar/Hall/Spasic have all ruled that "the prohibition against possession of cannabis in the Controlled Drug and Substance Act is invalid and of no force or effect" and that prohibition was constitutionally unacceptable.

Law enforcement does however still pursue arrests for possession here. 10,000 convictions in Ontario(2009)

 

[J. Greenstein]

10,000 convictions in Ontario in 2009 yet pot is technically legal? I don't get it.

 

[OneTokeOver]

There's a difference between legal and lawful.

 

[SirTOKESalot]

guess you dont remember when marc emery was smoking outside that morning saying pot was legal in canada? d

I was there... Was not cool.

 

[SourPuppy]

Kool thread but huh?? I'm wit hippydan,
i still dont get it??