Cannabis Act

[troutman]

FYI under the todays laws written by the conservatives on cannabis there is six months mandatory minimum for six plants! Under the new Liberal law six plants gets you a 200 dollar fine!

To be honest mandatory minimums don't work and are probably never applied.

Reasoning: If there was no leeway for reduced sentences. People would fight their cases and the courts would be backlogged so much that charges would be dropped due to Constitutional delays. aka S.11(d) of the Charter.

Trust me on this. If people fought all of their charges the Crown would get a Heart Attack.

 

[Rider420]

To be honest mandatory minimums don't work and are probably never applied.

Reasoning: If there was no leeway for reduced sentences. People would fight their cases and the courts would be backlogged so much that charges would be dropped due to Constitutional delays. aka S.11(d) of the Charter.

Trust me on this. If people fought all of their charges the Crown would get a Heart Attack.

Tell that to this old man!


By Cam Fortems - March 31, 2015

https://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/76...h-jail-term-for-growing-150-small-pot-plants/

76-year-old gets mandatory six-month jail term for growing 150 small pot plants

North Thompson grandfather who started a grow-op to augment his small pension has been given a mandatory six-month term in prison.
Donald Clarkson, 76, pleaded guilty in B.C. Supreme Court in Kamloops to production of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking after police raided an outbuilding on his property in August 2013.
“My pension wasn’t big enough,” Clarkson told Justice Dev Dley on Monday, March 30. “That’s the only reason I did it.”

Crown and defence lawyers made a joint submission for the six-month jail term — the minimum sentence after the Conservative government toughened the country’s drug laws.
Crown prosecutor Anthony Varesi said Clarkson rented the property in Little Fort in the North Thompson Valley for more than 10 years. He was assisted by a female pensioner who earlier pleaded guilty to a lesser role in helping him harvest.
Clarkson came under suspicion after police were alerted to the smell coming from the property. They found 150 small plants. At harvest, the value was estimated at $60,000.
Varesi said the grow-op appeared to be well organized.
Defence lawyer Sheldon Tate said Clarkson lived a modest life, noting there was no evidence he was enjoying the spoils of earlier crops. The trucker who retired more than 10 years ago has a dated and unrelated criminal record.
“His motive for committing this crime was to augment his income,” Dley said. “As limited as it might have been, it can only be categorized as a crime of greed and for no other reason.”
In addition to the six-month jail term, Clarkson is prohibited from possessing firearms for 10 years and must also submit a sample of his DNA to the national registry.

Do you need more examples to overcome your nativity?

BTW the female pensioner also got the six months minimum.

 

[troutman]

Tell that to this old man!


By Cam Fortems - March 31, 2015

https://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/76...h-jail-term-for-growing-150-small-pot-plants/

76-year-old gets mandatory six-month jail term for growing 150 small pot plants

North Thompson grandfather who started a grow-op to augment his small pension has been given a mandatory six-month term in prison.
Donald Clarkson, 76, pleaded guilty in B.C. Supreme Court in Kamloops to production of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking after police raided an outbuilding on his property in August 2013.
“My pension wasn’t big enough,” Clarkson told Justice Dev Dley on Monday, March 30. “That’s the only reason I did it.”

Crown and defence lawyers made a joint submission for the six-month jail term — the minimum sentence after the Conservative government toughened the country’s drug laws.
Crown prosecutor Anthony Varesi said Clarkson rented the property in Little Fort in the North Thompson Valley for more than 10 years. He was assisted by a female pensioner who earlier pleaded guilty to a lesser role in helping him harvest.
Clarkson came under suspicion after police were alerted to the smell coming from the property. They found 150 small plants. At harvest, the value was estimated at $60,000.
Varesi said the grow-op appeared to be well organized.
Defence lawyer Sheldon Tate said Clarkson lived a modest life, noting there was no evidence he was enjoying the spoils of earlier crops. The trucker who retired more than 10 years ago has a dated and unrelated criminal record.
“His motive for committing this crime was to augment his income,” Dley said. “As limited as it might have been, it can only be categorized as a crime of greed and for no other reason.”
In addition to the six-month jail term, Clarkson is prohibited from possessing firearms for 10 years and must also submit a sample of his DNA to the national registry.

Do you need more examples to overcome your nativity?

BTW the female pensioner also got the six months minimum.

He's lucky all he got is 6 months. I've seen worse for less plants.

nativity? Sorry I don't fit in with the word's description. How much did you smoke today?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nativity

 

[troutman]

If you think Judges don't go on their own tangent and sentence the way want.
You haven't been in a courtroom! I have and can tell you Judges apply justice
as they wish. One person will get jail for a crime and the next person who has
committed the same offence gets house arrest if that. Joint submissions by the
Crown and the defence lawyers are ignored more often than not by Judges.

 

[Gmack]

He's lucky all he got is 6 months. I've seen worse for less plants.

nativity? Sorry I don't fit in with the word's description. How much did you smoke today?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nativity

Riders isnt known for his wisdom. The mandatory sentencing laws have already been found to be unconstitutional in other cases. Judges are free to ignore them. But hey what do I know.

 

[Gmack]

Try reading rider it may hurt for awhile but it will do you good.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-sentencing-mandatory-minumums-1.3537150 Only 15 month old news..

 

[Rider420]

Try reading rider it may hurt for awhile but it will do you good.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-sentencing-mandatory-minumums-1.3537150 Only 15 month old news..

If you had actually read the article you would know those examples were not for growing cannabis and the laws still stand. Just the one year for dealing drugs and for firearms were removed. FYI those laws were struck down in 2012 and 2014 and are three year old news! Sorry buddy but you get what you give eh https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/news/canada-mandatory-minimum-sentences/

https://lop.parl.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0553-e.htm

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MMS
MMS are generally inconsistent with the fundamental principle that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender,(2) as they do not allow a judge to make any exception in an appropriate case. However, this does not necessarily mean that an MMS is unconstitutional. An MMS constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if it is possible for the MMS, in a specific matter or reasonable hypothetical case, to be “grossly disproportionate,” given the gravity of the offence or the personal circumstances of the offender.
By way of example, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded in 1987 that an MMS of seven years for importing or exporting a narcotic constituted cruel and unusual punishment because it failed to take into account the nature and quantity of the substance, the reason for the offence, or the absence of any previous convictions.(3) The applicable provision was accordingly struck down. Conversely, the current MMS of four years for criminal negligence causing death, where a firearm is used, was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2000 on the basis that such an offence necessarily involves wanton and reckless disregard for life and safety.(4)

That 76 year old man did do six months in jail and would have gotten more if he had just one more plant.

I love the fact people deny what they don't like without any understanding of the law.

BTW I have smoked lots today thanks and am quite happy, I make mistakes like every other human. the question I have is why are you so angry? ROLMFAO rolling one laughing my fucking ass off.

 

[Gmack]

Unconditional is unconditional. The charge isn't important. Judges are free to sentence you as they see fit.

 

[Rider420]

Unconditional is unconditional. The charge isn't important. Judges are free to sentence you as they see fit.

Go ask a judge! ROLMFAO btw did you mean unconstitutional is unconstitutional? Sorry buddy but you set your self up for that one.

FYI Judges in Canada have to show precedent in their sentencing and are required to write a paper explaining their reasons for the sentence.

 

[Gmack]

Go ask a judge! ROLMFAO btw did you mean unconstitutional is unconstitutional? Sorry buddy but you set your self up for that one.

FYI Judges in Canada have to show precedent in their sentencing and are required to write a paper explaining their reasons for the sentence.

Ok then.... retard
https://infotel.ca/newsitem/mandato...e-sets-precedent/it43388#.WUFupPN6Nhc.twitter

It's a lot of words so I'll show you the important part.
"The sentencing judge found that provision unconstitutional based on a complex legal test that examines whether or not the mandatory minimum would be grossly disproportionate for hypothetical offenders — for example a medical patient growing for himself and his sick friends who cannot afford to buy from federally-regulated producers."
Judges are free to do whatever they fucking want when it comes to sentencing, dummy.

 

[Rider420]

Ok then.... retard
https://infotel.ca/newsitem/mandato...e-sets-precedent/it43388#.WUFupPN6Nhc.twitter

It's a lot of words so I'll show you the important part.
"The sentencing judge found that provision unconstitutional based on a complex legal test that examines whether or not the mandatory minimum would be grossly disproportionate for hypothetical offenders — for example a medical patient growing for himself and his sick friends who cannot afford to buy from federally-regulated producers."
Judges are free to do whatever they fucking want when it comes to sentencing, dummy.

The case isn’t binding in other provinces, but could be used by lawyers outside B.C. to argue that mandatory minimums be set aside, Conroy says.

The mandatory minimums were established under the Stephen Harper government, and Conroy would sooner see them gone.
“Hopefully this (decision) will send a message to our government about getting rid of some of the things the Harper government did and getting back to individualized sentences,” Conroy says.

He says the Crown still has time to appeal the case, in which it would go to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Keith Steven Elliott was charged in connection with his role in a 195-plant grow operation in the basement of a home in a residential area of Kelowna. His involvement was limited to trimming plants for $20 an hour

He was only a trimmer not a grower. And its only applicable in BC the law is still on the books in the rest of Canada and will be until it goes to the supreme court of Canada or the Liberals change the law. BTW I'm glad that the Judge found the laws unconstitutional rather then unconditional ROLMFAO

 

[Gmack]

Sorry for the lack of oversight on my autocorrect but your still wrong. Anyone convicted can argue the 6 month minimum is unconstitutional. And there's a good chance the judge will agree with the argument. Also it would make a case for appeal if you were sentenced to 6 months. But I've only provided you with case after case showing this to be true. Bottom line if you get sentenced to 6 months it's because the judge decided that's a fair sentence not because of sentencing guidelines that have been repeatedly found to be unconstitutional. Believe whatever you want you unconditional retard case law is on my side.

 

[Gmack]

Oh and the charge was cultivation not trimming. There is no charge for trimming. He was charged with cultivation, even though they were not his plants.

 

[Rider420]

Oh and the charge was cultivation not trimming. There is no charge for trimming. He was charged with cultivation, even though they were not his plants.

Oh ya two year suspended sentence vs $200 fine for six plants. Which would you rather have? A criminal record or a small fine?

Great news that the mandatory minimums on growing cannabis may have gone by the way side but only in BC and this ruling can still be appealed to the supreme court. So while it may stand for now there is no way to know when or even if it gets appealed to the supreme court or how they would rule.

My point still stands the courts may reduce the sentencing but its the government that decides the legality of cannabis. This was already decided by the supreme court. And its the Conservatives who made cannabis laws so harsh and its the Liberals who will fix this issue.

 

[Rider420]

Sorry for the lack of oversight on my autocorrect but your still wrong. Anyone convicted can argue the 6 month minimum is unconstitutional. And there's a good chance the judge will agree with the argument. Also it would make a case for appeal if you were sentenced to 6 months. But I've only provided you with case after case showing this to be true. Bottom line if you get sentenced to 6 months it's because the judge decided that's a fair sentence not because of sentencing guidelines that have been repeatedly found to be unconstitutional. Believe whatever you want you unconditional retard case law is on my side.

What good does appealing your six month sentenced if you have already served it?

So according to you if you are growing six plants and the judge sentences you to six months because he thinks its fair then that's better then getting a 200 fine under the new law?

Dude ROLMFAO are you kidding me?

 

[troutman]

I still think 4 plants is stupid. Sure it's better than none.
But 10 would be more appropriate and hopefully in time
when regular people who are not making money in the
industry see that Cannabis isn't a gateway drug.
The Government will let people grow more.

Do they allow homebrewers only 4 cases of beer or wine to be made?

 

[siftedunity]

congrats to you guys in Canada, at least its moving in the right direction for you.
sad that they can differentiate between a flowering plant and a vegging one, but not a clone and a potted plant. Id take about 40 clones and then keep the best and bin the rest. so this wouldn't help me out much if I lived there! even if I only flowered 4 and vegged 4

 

[Rider420]

I still think 4 plants is stupid. Sure it's better than none.
But 10 would be more appropriate and hopefully in time
when regular people who are not making money in the
industry see that Cannabis isn't a gateway drug.
The Government will let people grow more.

Do they allow homebrewers only 4 cases of beer or wine to be made?

IMHO as soon as cannabis is legal in the states the limits will go up.

FYI Canada does not have any limit on home brewed wine or beer. In the states its 100 gallon per person and 200 total per household.

 

[Rider420]

congrats to you guys in Canada, at least its moving in the right direction for you.
sad that they can differentiate between a flowering plant and a vegging one, but not a clone and a potted plant. Id take about 40 clones and then keep the best and bin the rest. so this wouldn't help me out much if I lived there! even if I only flowered 4 and vegged 4

How about if you could go to the cannabis shop try different buds and then buy the clone that made the best of those buds? Would that not be better then growing out forty plants to find one?

FYI under the new laws you will be able to buy clones in such a manner.

Sounds too fucking good to be true but fingers crossed.

 

[Limeygreen]

I still think the watt/light limit would be better than plant limit. It would cut down fro a need of plant counts and be safer for everyone (at least it can be justified as safer saying people cannot run 10000 watts in residential house who jerry rigged everything) There are always a couple people who make everyone else look bad so for me it makes more sense saying 1000 watt flowering per adult up to 3-4 adults, 400-600 for veg. For recreational that should produce quite a bit, but outdoor should be pushed as preferred method so that people would be more open and rippers would be less likely to steal if a lot of people are doing it. I can't see height restrictions making any sense, I have a hard time believing indoor many people wanting to do 10 foot trees, much less being capable of it in a regular house.