Text of Canada's C15 Bill Marijuana clause

[morgentaler]

3. (1) Paragraphs 7(2)(a) and (b) of the Act are replaced by the following:

(non-marijuana related drugs omitted for post)

(b) if the subject matter of the offence is cannabis (marihuana), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years, and to a minimum punishment of

• (i) imprisonment for a term of six months if the number of plants produced is less than 201 and more than five, and the production is for the purpose of trafficking,

• (ii) imprisonment for a term of nine months if the number of plants produced is less than 201, the production is for the purpose of trafficking and any of the factors set out in subsection (3) apply,

• (iii) imprisonment for a term of one year if the number of plants produced is more than 200 and less than 501,

• (iv) imprisonment for a term of 18 months if the number of plants produced is more than 200 and less than 501 and any of the factors set out in subsection (3) apply,

• (v) imprisonment for a term of two years if the number of plants produced is more than 500, or

• (vi) imprisonment for a term of three years if the number of plants produced is more than 500 and any of the factors set out in subsection (3) apply;

----------------------------------------------------------

Please be aware that trafficking does not require an exchange for profit. You can just be growing some for yourself and your friends and still be charged for giving it to them.

This site seems like a good start for activism, if you are so inclined... and really, we all should be.

http://www.whyprohibition.ca/

If you sign the petition, please add a personal message to make your point. Boilerplate petition letters do not get the same attention as those with effort put into them by the sender.

If you do include a personal message

• keep it polite
• address the fact that marijuana prohibition laws are morality laws and that if you want to smoke or grow pot you are not infringing on anyone else's rights by doing so.
• prohibition creates more expense for the legal system and misery for innocent people who are harming no one.
• elimination of prohibition has more effect on removing the profitable black market and crime.
• and any other points you can think of.

Just don't start calling names or anything that will get your letter thrown in the crank pile.

Harper's doing this to appease the US administration, despite that fact that Canadians overwhelmingly support decriminalization of marijuana. Let's put a stop to appeasement policy.

 

[DrUgZrBaD]

3. (1) Paragraphs 7(2)(a) and (b) of the Act are replaced by the following:

(non-marijuana related drugs omitted for post)

(b) if the subject matter of the offence is cannabis (marihuana), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years, and to a minimum punishment of

• (i) imprisonment for a term of six months if the number of plants produced is less than 201 and more than five, and the production is for the purpose of trafficking,

• (ii) imprisonment for a term of nine months if the number of plants produced is less than 201, the production is for the purpose of trafficking and any of the factors set out in subsection (3) apply,

• (iii) imprisonment for a term of one year if the number of plants produced is more than 200 and less than 501,

• (iv) imprisonment for a term of 18 months if the number of plants produced is more than 200 and less than 501 and any of the factors set out in subsection (3) apply,

• (v) imprisonment for a term of two years if the number of plants produced is more than 500, or

• (vi) imprisonment for a term of three years if the number of plants produced is more than 500 and any of the factors set out in subsection (3) apply;

----------------------------------------------------------

Please be aware that trafficking does not require an exchange for profit. You can just be growing some for yourself and your friends and still be charged for giving it to them.

This site seems like a good start for activism, if you are so inclined... and really, we all should be.

http://www.whyprohibition.ca/

If you sign the petition, please add a personal message to make your point. Boilerplate petition letters do not get the same attention as those with effort put into them by the sender.

If you do include a personal message

• keep it polite
• address the fact that marijuana prohibition laws are morality laws and that if you want to smoke or grow pot you are not infringing on anyone else's rights by doing so.
• prohibition creates more expense for the legal system and misery for innocent people who are harming no one.
• elimination of prohibition has more effect on removing the profitable black market and crime.
• and any other points you can think of.

Just don't start calling names or anything that will get your letter thrown in the crank pile.

Harper's doing this to appease the US administration, despite that fact that Canadians overwhelmingly support decriminalization of marijuana. Let's put a stop to appeasement policy.

If this bill does pass, and they do enforce it, BC is fucked.

Last time I checked it was the third highest industry, bringing in 7 billion a year to their economy.

The island will be even more fucked and probably be just a ghost town too.
The only industries they have is fishing and growing marijuana.

 

[morgentaler]

Yeah, it could rejuvenate the maritime provinces as well, with the reliance on fishing and farming.

 

[morgentaler]

The only politician to respond to my email so far is Jack Layton. It's a form letter, but it's good to see at least:

Thank you for contacting me about your concerns with Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Warnings from expert witnesses in Canada and the U.S. about the costly failures of mandatory minimums in the U.S. didn't stop the Liberals from working with the Conservatives to support Bill C-15, a law that by all accounts will have no effect on drug crimes in Canada. You will find more information by visiting: http://tinyurl.com/n572ys and http://www.howdtheyvote.ca/vote.php?id=739.

Canada`s New Democrats voted against Bill C-15. We are interested in seeking other alternatives to the Conservatives' heavy-handed US-style war-on-drugs approach. We think it is time for a common sense drug strategy in Canada, one that addresses drug use from a public health perspective.

New Democrat Substance Abuse Critic Libby Davies states that, "Mandatory minimums have been an expensive failure in the United States, divert needed resources from prevention, treatment, and harm reduction measures, and further criminalize what must be recognized as a public health issue." Please see below a copy of Ms. Davies' recent release on
C-15 and check out her work on this legislation at: www.libbydavies.ca.

As well, we want Canadians to feel safe in their homes and their communities. It is their right and when they don't feel safe, we undercut the building blocks of a caring and prosperous society. To that end, the NDP is working to secure:

- An overall coordinated strategy focused on gangs and organized crime;
- An improved witness protection program;
- More resources for prosecution and enforcement;
- Toughened proceeds of crime legislation;
- More officers on the street as promised by the Conservatives but not yet delivered; and
- Better and more prevention programs to divert youth-at-risk.

In rejecting Bill C-15, New Democrats will continue to fight for the solutions that will effectively include harm reduction measures, as well as accessible treatment, as a more intelligent approach to drug use. All the best.

Sincerely,


Jack Layton, MP (Toronto-Danforth)
Leader, Canada's New Democrats



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUNE 12, 2009

LIBERALS JOIN CONSERVATIVES TO PASS HEAVY HANDED DRUG BILL

OTTAWA - The Liberal Party teamed up with the Conservatives this week, to pass a bill that will impose a mandatory minimum sentence for the trafficking of just one marijuana plant.

Warnings from expert witnesses in Canada and the U.S. about the costly failures of mandatory minimums in the U.S. didn't stop the Liberals from working with the Conservatives to bring in Bill C-15, a law that by all accounts will have no effect on drug crimes in Canada.

"Mandatory minimums have been an expensive failure in the United States, divert needed resources from prevention, treatment, and harm reduction measures, and further criminalize what must be recognized as a public health issue," said New Democrat Substance Abuse Critic Libby Davies.

The John Howard Society, the Canadian Bar Association and Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network who testified on C-15, all warned that these sentences mostly target low-level drug users and street dealers, and not the drug-lords and king-pins that the Conservatives have promised to go after.

"Not one witness, not one study, could show that mandatory minimums work to reduce drug use or drug crimes," said Davies. "The U.S. is repealing these laws as fast as they can, so why is Canada moving backwards on this issue?"

"This bill represents a massive failure in our public policy in dealing with drugs and drug crime," said Davies. "It is a shame that the Liberals have walked away from their principles and teamed up with the Conservatives to push this bad bill through."


Now he just needs to promise to legalize it. In writing.

 

[mulletator]

This is a crazy bill. How the hell did the liberals side with the conservatives on this one? They were going to decriminalize in '04. Even the US is starting to make progress on marijuana.

 

[morgentaler]

I kind of wonder if they're using it as a power play to get the Conservatives to play ball on a couple of issues, and then will rescind it once they regain power.

I haven't voted for any of the major parties in years.

I've voted Green, usually because the candidates where I was living previously were well informed, not old school politicians, and were on par with most of the legal, technological, and business issues I wanted addressed.

But now that I've moved I'm going to have to figure out who the good guys are here. I'd rather support a good representative than any particular party.

 

[Dradden]

Great if they pass that bill we are going to be hit with yet another tax to pay for the flood of new inmates. Hopefully it is just political maneuvering and thats it.

 

[MidnightBaker]

Anyone else notice that for the first (i) it states: "imprisonment for a term of six months if the number of plants produced is less than 201 and more than five, and the production is for the purpose of trafficking

between 5-201 plants...so um if i have 4 or less they literally do nothing?

any legal advice on this? this is just how i interpreted this to mean...

 

[MidnightBaker]

??? buuuuump.

 

[furbieone]

Anyone else notice that for the first (i) it states: "imprisonment for a term of six months if the number of plants produced is less than 201 and more than five, and the production is for the purpose of trafficking

between 5-201 plants...so um if i have 4 or less they literally do nothing?

any legal advice on this? this is just how i interpreted this to mean...

Would like to know the answer to this also.

 

[SpruceZeus]

Anyone else notice that for the first (i) it states: "imprisonment for a term of six months if the number of plants produced is less than 201 and more than five, and the production is for the purpose of trafficking

between 5-201 plants...so um if i have 4 or less they literally do nothing?

any legal advice on this? this is just how i interpreted this to mean...

I definitely doesn't mean that at all. Its just that this bill doesn't affect that part of the law.
I'm not 100% sure, but i'm pretty sure that the penalty for personal cultivation is up to 6 months in jail and/or a $1000 fine.

The long and short of it is, this is a terrible bill that further criminalizes people for victimless crimes.
Sad that we should be looking in envy at the states (well some of them) for their more tolerent drug laws.

If this bill sticks, i'll strongly consider moving to California, looking for amnesty.