Bill C-15 has passed in Canada. You will get 6 Months prison for one plant. ORGANIZE.

[mr noodles]

the whole thing make no sense at all, 9 months sentence is a provincial thing , the province here let people go at the 1/6 of their sentence in most case because the system is overcrowded . how this shit will impact provincial economy ? i cant see my province carceral system handle this .

you get no jail in most of the time for beating somebody but mandatory jail for pot. crazier than the usa .

so far nothing will stop this

 

[mr noodles]

wait. ...senator rivet just brough something interesting

 

[mr noodles]

rejected ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

 

[mr noodles]

i think the whole bill will be voted this afternoon by the full senate....................

its the end of the world

 

[headband 707]

IMHO the prices will go up. it's already going up from all the busts they have been doing here. The DEA has moved into Canada and our extemely stupid Gov. let them in ... If they go after ppl that don't own or the young ppl then they are just going after the poorest ppl that can't fight legally when time comes.All they have done is push it futher underground as they are never going to stop it, like the war on the Taliban. What fools we have in power lol peace out Headband707

 

[fatigues]

i think the whole bill will be voted this afternoon by the full senate....................

its the end of the world

Hardly. A little balance please

I would also point out that is exceptionally rare for the Senate of Canada to amend a government bill. They talk a lot, but actual amendments which go to the substance of a bill are exceedingly rare. The Senate's role in Canada's Parliament is largely a symbolic one.

For those who suggest that the comments, e-mails and general NOISE on Bill C-15 in the Senate did not have an effect on the legislation - you are in grave error.

It DID have an effect. Not as large as many would have preferred - but an effect just the same. A very significant effect, too.

Be a little balanced in your assessments of the political process and take some solace in the fact that opposition to this bill in the Senate of Canada actually had an effect on legislation. That opposition got rid of the most objectionable part of the legislation in the Senate Committee. That, in itself, is a very, very rare thing indeed.

 

[mr noodles]

well in my case there no good news , i suffer from severals chronic diseases and i cant find a doctor who is willing to sign my paper for bureaucratic reason even if i overqualify for be a med patient . i am already a criminal to the eyes of the justice and this fucking piece of legislation is the worst case scenario no matter how we turn this .

lets face it the harpo did this with the help of the libs,ndp, bloc

canada is fucked period

 

[headband 707]

Harpor is a Conservative not a Libral lol I just to point that out.. Not that I trust any of them lol peace out Headband707

 

[mr noodles]

Harpor is a Conservative not a Libral lol I just to point that out.. Not that I trust any of them lol peace out Headband707

we all know harpo is conservative lol but i pointed the fact that ignatief voted in favor of c-15 as well at layton and duceppe

 

[fatigues]

lets face it the harpo did this with the help of the libs,ndp, bloc

The NDP and the Bloc have consistently opposed Bill C-15. The Liberals passed it in the Commons (because 70% of Canadians were in support of it) and have now amended the most objectionable element of it out of the Bill in the Senate.

The Conservatives will rant that the Liberals are trying to have it both ways. To say that they are tough on crime in one breath, while amending legislation in the Senate that they supposedly voted for in the Commons.

In fairness, the Conservatives have a valid point. The Liberals ARE trying to have it both ways.

The Liberals are trying to do the right thing while avoiding the payment of a political price at the polls from the broad mass of Candians who do not understand the nuances of the Bill but have decided that they don't like drug dealers and commercial growers very much.

I understand you are disappointed, but do strive to at least be accurate at who you are directing your anger at.

 

[fatigues]

I received the following e-mail alert today from WhyProhobition.Ca.

In my view, the analysis in the e-mail is overly alarmist.

WhyProhibition.ca Writes:

C-15 has been passed by the Senate Committee with minor amendments.


It now proceeds to the Senate for a final vote. After that, the bill only requires a signature by the Governor General to become law.

This unfortunately means we will be unable to delay C-15 any further, and short of rejection by the Senate (highly unlikely), we will face passage of this bill before, or shortly after, the Winter break.

The amendments are as follows:
The Senate Constitutional and Legal Affairs committee today voted to remove under 201 plants from C-15's mandatory minimum sentencing provisions, so long as the production occurs outside of residential areas and in properties owned by the grower.
Let me be clear:

If you produce 1 plant in a residential neighbourhood, C-15 still prescribes a 9 month sentence. [ FALSE. Only if other factors are present]

If you produce 1 plant in a rented property, C-15 still prescribes a 9 month sentence. [VERY TRUE, but only if trafficking is proved]

If you produce 1 plant in a house that you own, C-15 still prescribes a 9 month sentence. [FALSE. Only if other factors are present]


If you produce 200 plants on a farm that you own, C-15 does not apply. [FALSE. Other factors can be present so that it can still apply]


Unfortunately, the Committee was missing the two most prominent critics of C-15 during the clause-by-clause debate today, and were unable to propose ammendments to remove 1-201 plants in residential or rented properties. [The reasons for Senator Nolin and Senator Campbell's absence, in light of the amendment which was passed, is obvious.]

This was a victory today, but a small one, that primarily effects rural areas, leaving urban areas under the thumb of these ridiculous mandatory minimum sentences.

The characterization that the amendment applies only to those living outside of residential areas is, in my view, an overly pessimistic and false characterization of the amendments to the Bill.

They are interpreting the following as the doom and gloom scenario:

(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,

(3) The following factors must be taken into account in applying paragraphs (2)(b):

(c) the production constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area;

____________

Their legal analysis referred to above is, in tone and substance, incorrect.

Further, I do not accept the doomsday scenario that "any grow in a residential neighbourhood is a public safety hazard". That spin has been put forward by some activists in the MJ community but I think it is an overly alarmist interpretation that will not be favoured by the courts.

The evidence which was submitted to the Senate Committee on what the intention of the meaning behind "public safety hazard" meant was that it was language meaning a risk of chemical fire/explosion (precursor chemicals) or by reason of a spliced power line. The evidence that a "quiet grow op" would be covered by this section was not the evidence presented by the Ministry of Justice - they expressed the exact opposite view and said it would not intended to cover a "quiet grow op".

While the courts ultimately interpret what a section means or does not mean - and are not bound by evidence given before committees of legislative intent - such evidence is admissable and often tends to carry significant weight where the meaning of the wording of a statute is equivocal or ambiguous.

It is highly unlikely that the doom and gloom scenario presented by WhyProhibition.Ca will be adopted by the courts; this is expecially so where the overall premise and intent of the statute is to remove judicial discretion from the court. Bill C-15 is all about NOT TRUSTING JUDGES. Can there be much doubt that most judges will, wherever they can, interpret a statute which is all about not trusting them, as narrowly as they can? After all, there is nothing in these provisions which makes it NOT an offence or PREVENTS the judge from imposing a harsher sentence on their own. I assure you - judges in Canada take a very dim view of politicians in Parliament telling judges they are not to be trusted to do their jobs properly.

This e-mail alert is, in my opinion, overly dramatic and alarmist.

It also notes that Senators Campbell and Nolin were not at the meeting - without inferring the obvious reason as to why they were not there.

 

[J. Greenstein]

Thanks for breaking it down for us Fatigues.

 

[Norrath]

FML

thanks for the write up fatigues!

 

[headband 707]

You are still forcing ppl to HAVE to seek legal counsil and that cost money that most ppl can't afford.Considering who they are going after,I don't trust a system that grows and sells pot but tells their citizens they can't. peace out Headband707

 

[bottletoke]

This is not really that big of a deal, unless you are a personl grower.

In one year i can grow enough pot to never have to work again, but more realistically, i could make enough to take a 5 year vacation. To me 9 months for 200 plans seems pretty good. risking 9 months of imprisonment for 5 years of true freedom is a bargain.

annnnnnnnd...haha, if my house got raided, weed would be the last thing i would be worried about the cosp finding.

 

[Dr.Dank]

thats too fucked up wtf Canada needs to keep on making good genetics.

 

[J. Greenstein]

(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, [DELETED]

This section was removed by the Senate Committee. Sounds good, right? It is, but the below section remains:


(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,

[NOTE: this does NOT say "more than five and less than 201". It says "less than 201", period. If true, go to section 3, below.]


(3) The following factors must be taken into account in applying paragraphs (2)(b):

(a) the person used real property that belongs to a third party in committing the offence;

(b) the production constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to persons under the age of 18 years who were in the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area;

(c) the production constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area; or

(d) the person set or placed a trap, device or other thing that is likely to cause death or bodily harm to another person in the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area, or permitted such a trap, device or other thing to remain or be placed in that location or area

Discussion

Political Commentary: The absence of some key opponents of C-15 from the Senate Committee meeting on the amendments - namely Senators Campbell(L) and Nolin(C), suggests that a deal had already occurred well before today's committee meeting where the Committee had already determined what amendments were going to pass. Neither Senator Nolin nor Senator Campbell wanted to be seen as having anything to do with actually voting to pass C-15 in any form out of the committee, and so neither of them attended. Today's results were a foregone conclusion. The fix was already in.
The Amendments - The Process - What Remains in Bill C-15
First, the amendment has to pass the full Senate. It has not. The amendments the committee proposed in connection with eliminating the 2 for 1 sentencing credit in the last Bill it considered was not passed by the full Senate. This is far from a done deal. This amendment may not be approved by the full Senate.

The Bill is still potentially VERY significant. Please look at the "aggravating factors" and what remains.

What this means is that if you grow a single plant in rented accomodations, or even if you grow a single plant in your own home and there are children present who are exposed to a security, health or safety hazard by reason of the grow (exposing them to a "security" hazard" is almost always certain as the presence of MJ plants exposes children to rippers) then you go to jail for nine months minimum. To be clear: in all cases the Crown must ALSO prove that the purpose of the grow was for trafficking. If they cannot prove that element, the mandatory minimum does not apply.

Result: If you own your own home and have no kids, you'll be safe from a mandatory minimum for 200 or less plants in most circumstances. But if you rent, (or even if your home is in your spouse's, sibling's, or parent's name), or if you have kids, you are still exposed.

If you place a trap near the grow, or more importantly, bypass an electrical meter, you'll have created a pubic security hazard (in most cases) and will be exposed to nine months. Reality is, under current judicial sentencing, anyone who places a trap near a grow or bypasses electricity is going to do at least a year anyways, so this really is symbolic in those cases. Those people will do more than nine months anyways.

[

OK Just to clarify...you can get busted for say 200 plants AND for the purpose of traficking...but you DON'T get a mandatory minimum unless on top of that you're renting, stealing hydro, have children, booby traps etc?

Originally it was the intent to distribute on top of the growing 5+ plants that got you a mandatory jail time.

 

[fatigues]

OK Just to clarify...you can get busted for say 200 plants AND for the purpose of traficking...but you DON'T get a mandatory minimum unless on top of that you're renting, stealing hydro, have children, booby traps etc?

Originally it was the intent to distribute on top of the growing 5+ plants that got you a mandatory jail time.

Correct. This section was deleted by amendment:

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

(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,

That is, assuming, that the amendments to C-15 passed in the Senate Committee today pass in the full Senate. They may not.

3(1)(b)(iii) remains - which always imposed a 9 month mandatory sentence for growing any number of plants less than 201 (i.e., even one plant) in the presence of any one of 4 aggravating factors as set out in section 3(3) the worst of which is the provision:

"(a) the person used real property that belongs to a third party in committing the offence";

The full extent of the "security risk to children provision" in 3(3)(b) and the "public health hazard in a residential area" aspects of 3(3)(c) have not yet been interpreted by the courts. They are troublesome, but nowhere near as bad as 3(3)(a).

This is assuming that 3(3)(a) withstands a Charter challenge under s.15 on age, racial or gender discrimination or analogous grounds. Where ethnicity or gender demonstrates a significantly higher number of renters than, say, white males, it is entirely possible that the courts will strike down a mandatory sentence that puts an apartment dweller in jail, while leaving a homeowner with the potential of avoiding a custodial sentence, when the facts giving rise to the conviction are otherwise identical.

In general, legislation which is, at its core, distrusting of judges is unlikely to receive great judicial deference. If a judge is presented with a fair argument at declaring a section of an Act invalid which says the judge cannot be trusted, my guess is the judge will be inclined to declare it invalid.

Moreover, Parliament has no valid constitutional interest in protecting the property rights of landlords, generally. That constitutional jurisidiction is, to the contrary, reserved exclusively for the provinces. So that provision may also be argued as being ultra vires (beyond the federal government's constitutional authority).

We'll see.

 

[J. Greenstein]

Thanks bro.

 

[Black Ra1n]

I don't agree with the 70% of Canadians want this....