I second the fucktard comment. I've been watching this loser speak, I would say he has it out for cannabis for sure. I hope his actions piss the senate off enough to squish his little dream and shove it straight up his ass.
Bill C-15 has passed in Canada. You will get 6 Months prison for one plant. ORGANIZE.
- Thread starter StrainCollector
- Start date
D
deepforest
who are the women that sleep with and procreate with these men
jesus
they deserve our hate as much as anyone else
jesus
they deserve our hate as much as anyone else
mr noodles
Member
I admire your optimism Fatigues....and I guess at this point we should all be thinking in a more positive light....as like you said the fat lady hasn,t sung yet.
jarff
Okay but these are men doing this not women lol leave the women alone lol peace out Headband707
I said that the chance of that happening "appears to be unlikely". That would not qualify as "optimism" to me.
I would hate to be misunderstood and for people to think there was a good chance of defeating this in its entirety. To be clear: I don't think that there is a good chance of defeating this thing in its entirety.
That said, the entire matter is not entirely without hope, either. There remains a chance that it can be defeated, further amended or end up dying on the order table.
There is a big difference between no hope and a modest hope, (in my opinion). The two are not the same.
This whole thing reminds me of the way Lawyers work.. They ask for outragous demands and then they realize they have to meet half way and they end up getting atleast 1/2 of their demands. The whole thing shouldn't have happened in the first place. I sure hope we can get these assholes out. peace out Headband707
puff n tuff
New member
Hey! so whats the deal now... dec.11 2009?? they amended it for now right?? ps brad im an old friemd of greens and have lots exp with him, but weve never meet , but hey!! have u tried any VISC strains ? plus the tundra was one of the best, like the pswiss, ive ever smoked or seen!!! Amazing bubble aswell!!! Peace
FrankDiscussion
Member
Bill C-15: What it means for cannabis producers and sellers
Bill C-15: What it means for cannabis producers and sellers
deleted
Bill C-15: What it means for cannabis producers and sellers
deleted
FrankDiscussion
Member
Bill C-15: What it means for cannabis producers and sellers
Bill C-15: What it means for cannabis producers and sellers
*Please distribute widely
Bill C-15: What it means for cannabis producers and sellers
http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/BillC15explained.html
By Kirk Tousaw, Executive Director, Beyond Prohibition Foundation
Bill C-15 imposes mandatory minimum jail sentences for a variety of CDSA (Controlled Drugs and Substances Act) offences including the sale and production of cannabis. It also raises the maximum penalty for producing cannabis from 7 years to 14 years. This article will focus on the impact on cannabis producers and distributors, though we should be aware that the negative consequences of this Bill will affect all Canadians.
The Bill, proposed by the Conservative minority government in the House of Commons and supported by the Liberals, was amended, slightly, by the Senate Committee that studied it. While the Committee heard from a lot of witnesses, the amendments that were adopted tell me that they didn't hear what those witnesses had to say. I am profoundly disappointed in the members of the Committee who, at the very least, could have amended this Bill to protect medical cannabis producers and sellers. For a time it seemed they would - I was asked specifically to write amendments for that purpose. They were not even debated. The Committee could also have amended the Bill to restore judicial discretion to depart from mandatory sentences in appropriate circumstances (as it did for aboriginal offenders). That didn't happen either.
The one amendment that affects cannabis removed the mandatory sentences for between 6 and 200 plants if, and only if, no aggravating factors apply. Let me repeat that to be clear: the Senate amendment did not remove mandatory jail time for under 200 plants. It only removed jail as an option if none of the aggravating factors are present.
Unfortunately the aggravating factors are so broad as to make the amendment nearly meaningless. Mandatory minimums will still be imposed for producing between 1 and 200 cannabis plants for the purpose of trafficking if there were weapons used or found, the location was booby trapped or rendered unsafe, the production created a danger to the public in a residential area or the property of a third party (ie, a rental unit) was used in the offence. These four factors are called "aggravating factors" and they also increase the mandatory sentences if more plants are being grown.
On a practical level, this will impact renters disproportionately. Also, when was the last time a cannabis production site in a residential area was not considered to be a danger to the public? Prohibitionists have mounted a decade-long propaganda war that has successfully convinced the public that cannabis can only be produced unsafely - something we know is completely false but that has become dogma. This means that, if you grow cannabis to sell (or even give away), in order to avoid the impact of the mandatory sentences you basically have to do it on rural property that you own. Oh, and by the way, if you do it on property you own you run the very real risk that the government will seek to forfeit that property, in some cases without even needing to convict you of the crime!
CANNABIS PRODUCERS
If you produce between 1 and 200 plants for the purpose of trafficking and one of the aggravating factors is present, you will be sentenced to nine months in prison.
If you produce between 201 and 500 plants for any purpose you will be sentenced to one year in prison. If any of the aggravating factors are present, the sentence is increased to eighteen months.
If you produce more than 501 plants for any purpose you will be sentenced to two years. If any of the aggravating factors are present, the sentence is increased to three years.
HASH, RESIN, OIL, COOKIE PRODUCERS
If you produce anything in Schedule II to the CDSA (which contains essentially all of the cannabis derivatives including resin) for the purpose of trafficking you will be sentenced to one year in prison. If any of the aggravating factors are present, the sentence is increased to eighteen months.
CANNABIS SELLERS
If you sell cannabis (or any Schedule II substance) in amounts greater than 3 kilograms, or possess such amounts for the purpose of trafficking, you will be sentenced to a mandatory year in prison if you commit the offence in connection with a criminal organization, threaten or use violence in committing the offence, carry, use or threaten to use a weapon in the commission of the offence or if you were convicted of, or served a term of imprisonment for, a "designated substance offence" in the last 10 years. "Designated substance offences" are basically production and sale offences. Note that the Senate Committee changed the last aggravating factor to read "convicted of and served at term of imprisonment of at least one year, or served a term of imprisonment for a 'designated substance offence'".
The sentence is increased to two years if you commit the offence in or near a school, on or near school grounds or in or near a place usually frequented by people under 18, in a prison or on prison grounds, or if you involve a person under 18 in committing the offence.
THE PURPOSE OF TRAFFICKING: WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
One of the prerequisites to mandatory sentences for producing less than 201 plants or for producing hash and byproducts is that it be done for the purpose of trafficking. This will have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial or at a sentencing hearing. The typical manner of proof is to put forward evidence that suggests trafficking: score sheets, scales, quantities of cash, multiple cell phones, baggies and the like. Obviously having those things at your production site will significantly increase your chances of facing a mandatory jail sentence.
Another method is to use a police "expert" witness to give an opinion based on the various circumstances. Police will, for example, typically assign average yields to plants and multiply that yield by the number of plants found to come up with an expected harvest. The witness will then assign values to that harvest at per gram ("street") and per pound prices. The officer then opines on the average consumption habits of even heavy, chronic users and suggests that the harvest will produce so much cannabis that the person could not possibly use it all before it goes bad. These things, according to the expert, support a conclusion that the purpose of producing the cannabis was to sell it.
It is certainly likely that people accused of producing for the purpose of trafficking will need to find and call rebuttal experts to seek to poke holes in the police theories. Police often, for example, fail to take into account things like sexing the plants, crop failure, genetic predisposition on yield, harvest fluctuation due to manner of growth (ie, 200 plants in a "sea of green" garden will yield substantially less cannabis than 200 growing 8 feet high in a warehouse) and other factors. They also tend to underestimate the ability of people to consume vast amounts of cannabis, or the different methods of ingestion that affect how much of the plant is used.
OTHER ASPECTS OF C-15
One of the more pernicious, and little discussed, aspects of C-15 is its effects on the availability of discharges (either absolute or conditional) and Conditional Sentence Orders.
A discharge is a sentencing option that allows the finding of guilty but no entry of a criminal conviction. Absolute discharges take effect immediately, at sentencing. Conditional discharges take effect after the individual completes certain conditions, typically spending a period of time on a sort of probation.
Discharges have often been used to give people second chances, or to dispense with the need for a conviction when it is in the interests of justice to do so. I have often had success obtaining discharges for persons growing cannabis for medicinal purposes, or for people growing a few plants for their own personal use.
Unfortunately, if C-15 passes, those days are over. Discharges are not permitted if the offence is punishable by either a mandatory minimum sentence or if a 14-year sentence is available. Cannabis production will now carry a 14-year maximum (up from 7), meaning that even personal non-commercial producers - even those not subject to the mandatory sentences - will no longer be discharge-eligible.
A Conditional Sentence Order (CSO) is a custodial sentence served in the community. The sentence length is set by the judge, though it must be under 2 years, and so are the conditions. Conditions can run the gamut from very strict 24-hours-a-day house arrest to much less restrictive curfews. A CSO is imposed in situations where the judge feels that the offence was serious enough to merit custody but the offender is not a risk to the community and the CSO fits with the principles of sentencing.
I've been successful in obtaining CSO dispositions even for persons charged with very large commercial production when, for example, there was no evidence of violence, no involvement with organized crime, the person was a first time offender with a family, job and good community involvement. Judges are often receptive to giving people a chance to continue contributing to their family and community instead of incarcerating them for growing cannabis.
Unfortunately, that discretion has also been stripped away by C-15. A CSO is not available for offences that carry mandatory minimum sentences.
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
One of the most ironic effects of C-15 will be to drive "mom and pop" growers out of the business. This will inevitably mean that organized crime will further solidify its grip on cannabis production and distribution. Despite propaganda to the contrary, the reality of cannabis production is that there are a whole lot of people engaged in relatively small scale production for distribution to friends and acquaintances. Organized crime certainly operates the massive production sites: much of this product is destined for the export markets. But by and large the cannabis that ordinary Canadians buy and use comes from small-scale local producers and is sold to them by people they describe as friends. That is probably going to change.
Another ironic effect will be an increase in the number of production sites. The market will respond to this legislation. Not by going away - that idea is lunacy. But, instead, organized criminals (who have substantial financial resources due to prohibition) will avoid the most harsh mandatory sentences by (a) buying properties to avoid the "rental property" aggravating factor; and (b) establishing many smaller production sites (with larger plants) to avoid the harsher penalties for over 200 and 500 plants.
A final irony comes when comparing the sentences for importing with that for production. Importing any amount of cannabis (from one joint to a hundred thousand pounds) will carry a mandatory minimum sentence of one year in jail. This means that the mandatory minimum sentence for importing cannabis is less than that imposed for growing 501 plants. Whether this will increase the import trade remains to be seen as these are mandatory minimums and importers of any significant quantity almost always receive penalties substantially longer than one year in prison.
Medical cannabis producers and sellers will be impacted severely by this legislation. It was not unusual to obtain discharges for people truly motivated by compassion. That will no longer be an option. If police decide to take enforcement action against Canada's compassion clubs a lot of good, caring, compassionate people will be facing long jail terms.
People that produce hash and cannabis products such as cookies will also face severe penalties - production of even one gram of hash or a dozen cookies, if made to sell or even to give away, will carry a minimum one year sentence and possibly more if you are baking the cookies in a rental property.
All told, the effects of this legislation on the cannabis community should not be underestimated. Canadians enjoy cannabis: we consume an estimated 7 - 10 million grams of it each week. Someone has to grow, process and sell it to the over two million regular consumers. Because of Bill C-15, it is likely that the exact people we don't want controlling this marketplace will be able to tighten their grip perhaps to the point of a virtual monopoly. This bodes ill for all Canadians.
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
The Bill contains a mandatory two year review (and the Senate added another at five years) but unfortunately reviews can be used as methods to shelve contentious issues. Or even issues wrongly perceived to be contentious, like this one. I suggest that you write to the members of the Senate Committee and/or the Senate as a whole to express your profound disappointment in their complicity in this legislation. You could also consider sending a financial donation to the Beyond Prohibition Foundation (bank account coming soon but for now checks can be made out payable to cash and sent to our offices at 142-757 West Hastings, Suite 211, Vancouver BC V6C 1A1 or contact me to discuss) so that we can continue working on this issue and preparing for the review process. We are also likely to actively pursue a Charter challenge to the legislation as soon as possible.
Finally, don't forget this issue during the next federal election. The Conservative revamping of our criminal justice system must be stopped. The Liberals and NDP must be forced to show some courage and leadership on this issue and every Liberal and NDP candidate must be confronted - repeatedly if necessary - to articulate their position on cannabis policy, the incarceration on non-violent cannabis offenders and medical cannabis. If that position is unsupported by fact, logic and compassion, they must be educated and motivated to change their tune.
Bill C-15 is dangerous. It will cause harm. We must never cease our efforts to undo the damage that is being done to our country. Onward!
Kirk Tousaw, Executive Director
Beyond Prohibition Foundation
Vancouver BC
www.whyprohibition.ca
Working to repeal cannabis prohibition and replace it with a regulated and controlled system of production and access.
Bill C-15: What it means for cannabis producers and sellers
*Please distribute widely
Bill C-15: What it means for cannabis producers and sellers
http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/BillC15explained.html
By Kirk Tousaw, Executive Director, Beyond Prohibition Foundation
Bill C-15 imposes mandatory minimum jail sentences for a variety of CDSA (Controlled Drugs and Substances Act) offences including the sale and production of cannabis. It also raises the maximum penalty for producing cannabis from 7 years to 14 years. This article will focus on the impact on cannabis producers and distributors, though we should be aware that the negative consequences of this Bill will affect all Canadians.
The Bill, proposed by the Conservative minority government in the House of Commons and supported by the Liberals, was amended, slightly, by the Senate Committee that studied it. While the Committee heard from a lot of witnesses, the amendments that were adopted tell me that they didn't hear what those witnesses had to say. I am profoundly disappointed in the members of the Committee who, at the very least, could have amended this Bill to protect medical cannabis producers and sellers. For a time it seemed they would - I was asked specifically to write amendments for that purpose. They were not even debated. The Committee could also have amended the Bill to restore judicial discretion to depart from mandatory sentences in appropriate circumstances (as it did for aboriginal offenders). That didn't happen either.
The one amendment that affects cannabis removed the mandatory sentences for between 6 and 200 plants if, and only if, no aggravating factors apply. Let me repeat that to be clear: the Senate amendment did not remove mandatory jail time for under 200 plants. It only removed jail as an option if none of the aggravating factors are present.
Unfortunately the aggravating factors are so broad as to make the amendment nearly meaningless. Mandatory minimums will still be imposed for producing between 1 and 200 cannabis plants for the purpose of trafficking if there were weapons used or found, the location was booby trapped or rendered unsafe, the production created a danger to the public in a residential area or the property of a third party (ie, a rental unit) was used in the offence. These four factors are called "aggravating factors" and they also increase the mandatory sentences if more plants are being grown.
On a practical level, this will impact renters disproportionately. Also, when was the last time a cannabis production site in a residential area was not considered to be a danger to the public? Prohibitionists have mounted a decade-long propaganda war that has successfully convinced the public that cannabis can only be produced unsafely - something we know is completely false but that has become dogma. This means that, if you grow cannabis to sell (or even give away), in order to avoid the impact of the mandatory sentences you basically have to do it on rural property that you own. Oh, and by the way, if you do it on property you own you run the very real risk that the government will seek to forfeit that property, in some cases without even needing to convict you of the crime!
CANNABIS PRODUCERS
If you produce between 1 and 200 plants for the purpose of trafficking and one of the aggravating factors is present, you will be sentenced to nine months in prison.
If you produce between 201 and 500 plants for any purpose you will be sentenced to one year in prison. If any of the aggravating factors are present, the sentence is increased to eighteen months.
If you produce more than 501 plants for any purpose you will be sentenced to two years. If any of the aggravating factors are present, the sentence is increased to three years.
HASH, RESIN, OIL, COOKIE PRODUCERS
If you produce anything in Schedule II to the CDSA (which contains essentially all of the cannabis derivatives including resin) for the purpose of trafficking you will be sentenced to one year in prison. If any of the aggravating factors are present, the sentence is increased to eighteen months.
CANNABIS SELLERS
If you sell cannabis (or any Schedule II substance) in amounts greater than 3 kilograms, or possess such amounts for the purpose of trafficking, you will be sentenced to a mandatory year in prison if you commit the offence in connection with a criminal organization, threaten or use violence in committing the offence, carry, use or threaten to use a weapon in the commission of the offence or if you were convicted of, or served a term of imprisonment for, a "designated substance offence" in the last 10 years. "Designated substance offences" are basically production and sale offences. Note that the Senate Committee changed the last aggravating factor to read "convicted of and served at term of imprisonment of at least one year, or served a term of imprisonment for a 'designated substance offence'".
The sentence is increased to two years if you commit the offence in or near a school, on or near school grounds or in or near a place usually frequented by people under 18, in a prison or on prison grounds, or if you involve a person under 18 in committing the offence.
THE PURPOSE OF TRAFFICKING: WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
One of the prerequisites to mandatory sentences for producing less than 201 plants or for producing hash and byproducts is that it be done for the purpose of trafficking. This will have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial or at a sentencing hearing. The typical manner of proof is to put forward evidence that suggests trafficking: score sheets, scales, quantities of cash, multiple cell phones, baggies and the like. Obviously having those things at your production site will significantly increase your chances of facing a mandatory jail sentence.
Another method is to use a police "expert" witness to give an opinion based on the various circumstances. Police will, for example, typically assign average yields to plants and multiply that yield by the number of plants found to come up with an expected harvest. The witness will then assign values to that harvest at per gram ("street") and per pound prices. The officer then opines on the average consumption habits of even heavy, chronic users and suggests that the harvest will produce so much cannabis that the person could not possibly use it all before it goes bad. These things, according to the expert, support a conclusion that the purpose of producing the cannabis was to sell it.
It is certainly likely that people accused of producing for the purpose of trafficking will need to find and call rebuttal experts to seek to poke holes in the police theories. Police often, for example, fail to take into account things like sexing the plants, crop failure, genetic predisposition on yield, harvest fluctuation due to manner of growth (ie, 200 plants in a "sea of green" garden will yield substantially less cannabis than 200 growing 8 feet high in a warehouse) and other factors. They also tend to underestimate the ability of people to consume vast amounts of cannabis, or the different methods of ingestion that affect how much of the plant is used.
OTHER ASPECTS OF C-15
One of the more pernicious, and little discussed, aspects of C-15 is its effects on the availability of discharges (either absolute or conditional) and Conditional Sentence Orders.
A discharge is a sentencing option that allows the finding of guilty but no entry of a criminal conviction. Absolute discharges take effect immediately, at sentencing. Conditional discharges take effect after the individual completes certain conditions, typically spending a period of time on a sort of probation.
Discharges have often been used to give people second chances, or to dispense with the need for a conviction when it is in the interests of justice to do so. I have often had success obtaining discharges for persons growing cannabis for medicinal purposes, or for people growing a few plants for their own personal use.
Unfortunately, if C-15 passes, those days are over. Discharges are not permitted if the offence is punishable by either a mandatory minimum sentence or if a 14-year sentence is available. Cannabis production will now carry a 14-year maximum (up from 7), meaning that even personal non-commercial producers - even those not subject to the mandatory sentences - will no longer be discharge-eligible.
A Conditional Sentence Order (CSO) is a custodial sentence served in the community. The sentence length is set by the judge, though it must be under 2 years, and so are the conditions. Conditions can run the gamut from very strict 24-hours-a-day house arrest to much less restrictive curfews. A CSO is imposed in situations where the judge feels that the offence was serious enough to merit custody but the offender is not a risk to the community and the CSO fits with the principles of sentencing.
I've been successful in obtaining CSO dispositions even for persons charged with very large commercial production when, for example, there was no evidence of violence, no involvement with organized crime, the person was a first time offender with a family, job and good community involvement. Judges are often receptive to giving people a chance to continue contributing to their family and community instead of incarcerating them for growing cannabis.
Unfortunately, that discretion has also been stripped away by C-15. A CSO is not available for offences that carry mandatory minimum sentences.
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
One of the most ironic effects of C-15 will be to drive "mom and pop" growers out of the business. This will inevitably mean that organized crime will further solidify its grip on cannabis production and distribution. Despite propaganda to the contrary, the reality of cannabis production is that there are a whole lot of people engaged in relatively small scale production for distribution to friends and acquaintances. Organized crime certainly operates the massive production sites: much of this product is destined for the export markets. But by and large the cannabis that ordinary Canadians buy and use comes from small-scale local producers and is sold to them by people they describe as friends. That is probably going to change.
Another ironic effect will be an increase in the number of production sites. The market will respond to this legislation. Not by going away - that idea is lunacy. But, instead, organized criminals (who have substantial financial resources due to prohibition) will avoid the most harsh mandatory sentences by (a) buying properties to avoid the "rental property" aggravating factor; and (b) establishing many smaller production sites (with larger plants) to avoid the harsher penalties for over 200 and 500 plants.
A final irony comes when comparing the sentences for importing with that for production. Importing any amount of cannabis (from one joint to a hundred thousand pounds) will carry a mandatory minimum sentence of one year in jail. This means that the mandatory minimum sentence for importing cannabis is less than that imposed for growing 501 plants. Whether this will increase the import trade remains to be seen as these are mandatory minimums and importers of any significant quantity almost always receive penalties substantially longer than one year in prison.
Medical cannabis producers and sellers will be impacted severely by this legislation. It was not unusual to obtain discharges for people truly motivated by compassion. That will no longer be an option. If police decide to take enforcement action against Canada's compassion clubs a lot of good, caring, compassionate people will be facing long jail terms.
People that produce hash and cannabis products such as cookies will also face severe penalties - production of even one gram of hash or a dozen cookies, if made to sell or even to give away, will carry a minimum one year sentence and possibly more if you are baking the cookies in a rental property.
All told, the effects of this legislation on the cannabis community should not be underestimated. Canadians enjoy cannabis: we consume an estimated 7 - 10 million grams of it each week. Someone has to grow, process and sell it to the over two million regular consumers. Because of Bill C-15, it is likely that the exact people we don't want controlling this marketplace will be able to tighten their grip perhaps to the point of a virtual monopoly. This bodes ill for all Canadians.
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
The Bill contains a mandatory two year review (and the Senate added another at five years) but unfortunately reviews can be used as methods to shelve contentious issues. Or even issues wrongly perceived to be contentious, like this one. I suggest that you write to the members of the Senate Committee and/or the Senate as a whole to express your profound disappointment in their complicity in this legislation. You could also consider sending a financial donation to the Beyond Prohibition Foundation (bank account coming soon but for now checks can be made out payable to cash and sent to our offices at 142-757 West Hastings, Suite 211, Vancouver BC V6C 1A1 or contact me to discuss) so that we can continue working on this issue and preparing for the review process. We are also likely to actively pursue a Charter challenge to the legislation as soon as possible.
Finally, don't forget this issue during the next federal election. The Conservative revamping of our criminal justice system must be stopped. The Liberals and NDP must be forced to show some courage and leadership on this issue and every Liberal and NDP candidate must be confronted - repeatedly if necessary - to articulate their position on cannabis policy, the incarceration on non-violent cannabis offenders and medical cannabis. If that position is unsupported by fact, logic and compassion, they must be educated and motivated to change their tune.
Bill C-15 is dangerous. It will cause harm. We must never cease our efforts to undo the damage that is being done to our country. Onward!
Kirk Tousaw, Executive Director
Beyond Prohibition Foundation
Vancouver BC
www.whyprohibition.ca
Working to repeal cannabis prohibition and replace it with a regulated and controlled system of production and access.
FrankDiscussion
Member
Senators' questioning of witnesses. "Best of" suggestions?
Senators' questioning of witnesses. "Best of" suggestions?
Hi all,
I will be converting more video from the Senate Committee meetings for posting on YouTube tomorrow.
*** This is your chance to let me know of any exchanges during the Senators' questioning of witnesses that you think needs to be made available for the public to see. ***
Please help me out with this.
Thanks,
FrankD
P.S. - I've already noted these 2 exchanges mentioned early in this thread:
Senators' questioning of witnesses. "Best of" suggestions?
Hi all,
I will be converting more video from the Senate Committee meetings for posting on YouTube tomorrow.
*** This is your chance to let me know of any exchanges during the Senators' questioning of witnesses that you think needs to be made available for the public to see. ***
Please help me out with this.
Thanks,
FrankD
P.S. - I've already noted these 2 exchanges mentioned early in this thread:
I would say get any of the talks about how much this is going to cost... the public knows that any numbers pre-budgeted for something always ends up going over budget 4 or 5 times the amount.
I love the footage when Rob wine ass cries about the voted on amendment.
Could you post links when your done... thanks!
I love the footage when Rob wine ass cries about the voted on amendment.
Could you post links when your done... thanks!
FrankDiscussion
Member
Good point about the costs. Thanks.
Here's the link to that vid you mentioned...
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson goes apoplectic and evasive over sensible amendments to Bill C-15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meUUvbFaqpA
More Nicholson vids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56a9DUJ1vmg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQq6oBBblcI
I'll post links when I upload more clips to YouTube.
-FrankD
Here's the link to that vid you mentioned...
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson goes apoplectic and evasive over sensible amendments to Bill C-15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meUUvbFaqpA
More Nicholson vids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56a9DUJ1vmg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQq6oBBblcI
I'll post links when I upload more clips to YouTube.
-FrankD
I know that Kirk Tousaw is doing his best to give his opinion as to the impact and effect of C-15, if passed.
I simply do not agree that what he is stating as a matter of fact, will necessarily be interpreted in that manner by the courts. In fact, on this specific point, I think Kirk is wrong.
There is a difference between opinion and fact; between certainty and doubt. And it does not assist anyone to make statements of opinion that purport to be statements of fact.
Which is a polite way of saying that while I respect Kirk Tousaw, I think he's wrong about this. In my legal opinion, Kirk's legal opinion is wrong.
Let me explain why.
First, we have a fixation on this website (and on others) about the cannabis aspects of Bill C-15. Bill C-15 does not exclusively deal with cannabis. It amends the CDSA to deal with mandatory minimum sentences involved in the manufacture of a large number of different drugs, not simply cannabis.
Multiple sections of Bill C-15 refer to Subsection 3. That's the way Bill C-15 is drafted. In addition to those subsections being referred to as aggravating factors in relation to the production of cannabis, those subsection are ALSO factors that are put there to relate to the manufacture of methamphetamine and ecstasy as controlled substances under Schedule I of the CDSA.
Crystal Meth, X, BHO and precursor chemicals. Got that?
Kirk asks: "When was the last time a cannabis production site in a residential area was not considered to be a danger to the public?"
While Kirk asks this question rhetorically, I have an answer for it, which, in the circumstances, is directly on point.
Answer: The last time? It was on October 21, 2009, when Paul Saint-Denis, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section at the Department of Justice attended before the Standing Senate Committee to explain the technical intent and purpose of the language of Bill C-15.
This specific topic came up for discussion with Mr. Saint-Denis. Let's see what was asked and what was answered by Senior Counsel for the Department of Justice when he testifed on this specific point, shall we?
Let me assure you that if Bill C-15 passes, the first time this subsection comes up for judicial interpetation, then as surely as the sun rises and sets, if defence counsel is doing his job properly, the Court will be referred to the above answer which Mr. Saint-Denis testified to, on behalf of the Department of Justice, as to the legislative intent behind this subsection.
This is a precursor chemicals provision according to the DoJ. It's not a "grow under HID light" provision. The specific concern deals with volatile precursor chemicals being used in a residential area and having the whole damn house BLOW UP, damaging the nearby property of others (that's why being in a residential area and having a nexus with others living nearby is important).
While Mr. Saint-Denis' answer is not legally binding on the Court, it is evidence which is highly persuasive and, in the absence of other clear statements of legislative intent, will likely be taken as conclusive of that intention by the court.
In short, I've read Kirk's summary of Bill C-15 and it is largely accurate and a solid summary of the purpose and intent of the Bill. However, on the meaning to be construed to the words "(c) the production constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area;" Kirk's comments probably go much too far.
End Result: Kirk's summary ought not to be taken as a statement of fact, ok? While he may end up being right, it is not at all clear and the matter is very much in doubt.
Please be careful on taking everything you read on the internet regarding the meaning and intent of Bill C-15 as gospel. Lawyers can - and frequently do - disagree on these matters. If they didn't - we wouldn't need courts and judges, would we?
D
deepforest
just an article of note:
""People get killed for marijuana all the time, drive-by shootings, it's big money," said Dhillon."
http://www2.canada.com/abbotsfordtimes/news/story.html?id=55fae1c2-c279-4266-8200-c0da689742e2
c-15 will make pot even "bigger money"
dumbass
""People get killed for marijuana all the time, drive-by shootings, it's big money," said Dhillon."
http://www2.canada.com/abbotsfordtimes/news/story.html?id=55fae1c2-c279-4266-8200-c0da689742e2
c-15 will make pot even "bigger money"
dumbass
D
deepforest
some more bullshit
"Const. Ian MacDonald with the Abbotsford Police said a lot of B.C. bud heads south of the border where its value significantly jumps, sometimes being traded pound-for-pound with cocaine,"
http://www2.canada.com/abbotsfordtimes/news/story.html?id=d630952e-50de-4cce-96ab-9dd29d96de4c
how are they legally allowed to say this or print this when anyone with common sense knows that this is impossible, economically???
"Const. Ian MacDonald with the Abbotsford Police said a lot of B.C. bud heads south of the border where its value significantly jumps, sometimes being traded pound-for-pound with cocaine,"
http://www2.canada.com/abbotsfordtimes/news/story.html?id=d630952e-50de-4cce-96ab-9dd29d96de4c
how are they legally allowed to say this or print this when anyone with common sense knows that this is impossible, economically???
D
deepforest
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...op-vancouver-police-speak-out/article1393601/
this article mentions an exemption from the mandatory minimums for Aboriginals. How can one race be treated differently than the other? this is so strange to me
this article mentions an exemption from the mandatory minimums for Aboriginals. How can one race be treated differently than the other? this is so strange to me
FrankDiscussion
Member
For LTE writers...
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1107205565113_102614765/?hub=Canada
[excerpt]
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency reports that "traffickers occasionally exchange cocaine at a rate of four to eight pounds of Canadian-produced marijuana for one kilogram of cocaine.''
---
BC BUD: GROWTH OF THE CANADIAN MARIJUANA TRADE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
INTELLIGENCE DIVISION
http://www.hackcanada.com/canadian/freedom/bc-bud.html
[excerpt]
RCMP investigations also indicate that traffickers occasionally exchange high-potency marijuana for cocaine at a ratio of about three units of marijuana to one of cocaine.
---
From the DEA website:
http://www.usdoj.gov:80/ndic/pubs/794/marijuan.htm
"The use of high-grade "BC Bud" as a currency with which traffickers in Canada buy cocaine in the United States is a practice still reported on a regular basis. Often, couriers attempting to return to Canada are arrested along the border with large quantities of cocaine. However, reports of the reputed exchange of Canadian marijuana for U.S. cocaine on a pound-for-pound ratio are false."
I posted on this topic elsewhere. I'll repost it here as it addresses your question.
The answer is simple: because there are already provisons within the Criminal Code which were introduced in 1995 to deal with the hugely disproportionate number of First Nations' offenders in Canada's prison system.
Part of the point of those sentencing reforms was to provide alternative sentencing regimes for aboriginal offenders wherever possible.
The minimum mandatory sentences in C-15 undermined the provisions contained in s. 718.2(e).
So the amendments the Senate put in the Bill are not creating a NEW exception for aboriginals in C-15 - it's putting BACK IN the alternative sentencing exceptions that already generally prevail for aboriginal offenders under s. 718.2(e) and in accordance with R. v. Gladue.
These "special sentencing laws" for aboriginals have been in place for 14 years. This is not new stuff.
The law was put into place because of the following grim statistic:
Aboriginals make up a little less than 4% of the Canadian population; however, they make up over 20% of the Canadian prison population.
That's a massive inbalance. 5:1 tells you that something has gone very, very wrong.
Fact is, aboriginals are sentenced to custodial sentences more often - and for far longer - than anybody else. It's not even remotely close. It's a national disgrace that s.718.2(e) was put into place to address.
I might also add that one of the paths out of the mandatory minimums for some offences under Bill C-15 was to instead proceed under an alternate sentencing path in special "Drug Courts". There are only 6 of them in Canada currently - only in Canada's largest cities. There is not a single "drug court" in areas where aboriginals are the "usual suspects". So... slow down on the racist comments, ok? The table is already rigged against them and the white folks had an escape clause for alternate sentencing that almost no aboriginal could take advantage of because there is no drug court where they live.
You may agree with s. 718.2(e); you may not agree with it. There are valid arguments on both sides. The Supreme Court of Canada - which has the final say on these matters, happens to agree with it. Justice Minister Nicholson does not.
The current Justice Minister is on record that he does not agree with s. 718.2(e). He is entitled to his view. I don't expect that the Supreme Court of Canada, however, is going to pay much deference to his opinion. Each of them serve until age 75 and there is no appeal from their judgments. He serves until the Prime Minister wants somebody else - or until Parliament is dissolved and a new cabinet is subsequently sworn in.
On the pecking order of who sets laws in Canada, the Justice Minister has about 160 people ahead of him in the chain of command who matter far more than he does. (That would be every judge on every appellate court in the country).
In this particular instance, Nicholson also had 49 Liberal and independent Senators who happen to care enough about the justice system to bother to read R. v. Gladue [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688 and keep it in mind when recommending amendments to laws about to be passed by Parliament.
FrankDiscussion
Member
Thanks for you posts about C-15, fatigues! How is it that you're so knowledgeable about the legislation?
